Back
High Court of Delhi
JAYANT NATH, J.
Mulk Raj Khullar
Versus
Anil Kapur & Others
CS(OS) No. 1855 of 2011
Decided on : 03-10-2013
Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 116 - Mandatory injunction - Limitation - Mesne profit - Maintainability of suit - License was terminated on 25 June, 2011 - Suit is filed in August 2011 - Suit is filed with promptitude against a licensee whose licence is terminated - Held, suit for mandatory injunction is maintainable - Defendant is a licensee and the term of the licence has come to an end, the defendant have not right to continue in the suit property - Defendant is a licensee and the term of the - Plaintiff is entitled to a decree of mandatory injunction - Enquiry into mesne profits would be ordered.
Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:
The suit was filed by the plaintiff seeking a mandatory injunction directing the defendants to vacate the suit property, along with claims for a permanent injunction, mesne profits, and damages (!) .
The plaintiff is the absolute owner of the property, having acquired it through a perpetual lease deed and subsequent conversion to freehold, with the property partially allotted to family members and used by the defendants under a license (!) (!) .
The defendants attempted to unlawfully access the property, prompting police complaints, and the plaintiff subsequently terminated the license, serving a legal notice to the defendants to vacate the premises (!) .
The defendant’s written statement raised technical objections, including the valuation of the suit for Court Fees, and disputed the plaintiff’s title, alleging forged documents and illegalities in property transfer documents (!) .
The court examined issues related to the maintainability of the suit, limitation period, valuation of the suit, and entitlement to mesne profits, ultimately holding that the suit for mandatory injunction was maintainable and filed within the prescribed limitation period (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The court found that the defendant, as a licensee, was obligated to vacate the property upon license termination and that the suit was filed with promptitude, making the claim for mandatory injunction valid (!) (!) (!) .
The court emphasized that even if there was some delay, it would not bar the suit, especially given prompt filing after license termination, and noted that licensees are generally required to surrender possession when the license ends (!) (!) .
The valuation of the suit for Court Fees was deemed proper, as the plaintiff exercised discretion in valuing the suit for a mandatory injunction, which does not require valuation at the market value of the property (!) (!) .
The court concluded that the defendant, as a licensee whose license had been terminated, had no right to remain on the property and was therefore liable to be evicted through a mandatory injunction (!) .
An enquiry into mesne profits was reserved for a future date, to be scheduled before the court, pending a determination of the plaintiff’s entitlement to damages for use and occupation (!) (!) .
These points summarize the court’s reasoning, findings, and orders based on the legal and factual issues raised in the case.
Jayant Nath, J.
1. The present Suit is filed by the plaintiff seeking the relief of mandatory injunction directing the defendants to remove themselves from suit property bearing Plot No.B-93, Rewari Line Industrial Area, Phase-I, Mayapuri, New Delhi. A decree for permanent injunction and mesne profits and damages is also sought.
2. The plaintiff submits in the Plaint that he is the absolute owner of the suit property. This was allotted to him vide perpetual lease deed executed by Delhi Development Authority on 20.09.1996. At the time of allotment the father of the plaintiff and plaintiff were carrying on business in the name and style of M/s. Rajko Sanitation. The said partnership was dissolved on 31.3.1968 and the assets of the said firm are stated to have been taken over by the plaintiff. It is hence stated that the plaintiff became the sole owner of the entire property measuring 2420 sq. yards. Out of this area, a portion measuring 1570 sq. yds was given to his son and son-in-law to start their business in the name of Defendant No.3 company. Certain portion was given to the defendants for limited user without charging any rent and no deed was executed. The plaintiff was stated to be one of the Directors of defendant No.3 company for some time and that recently the property was also converted from leasehold to freehold vide Conveyance Deed executed by DDA dated 7.5.2010 in favour of the plaintiff.
3. It is stated that the defendants tried to break open the locks of certain portions of the suit property because of which the plaintiff was constrained to file various police complaints in the month of February 2010. The defendants have also filed various complaints against the plaintiff. Hence, it is stated that the plaintiff vide legal notice dated 25.6.2011 terminated the license in favour of the defendants and called upon the defendants to remove themselves from the suit property within seven days of receipt of the legal notice. It is stated that the said legal notice was duly served upon defendants on 27.6.2011. No reply has been sent by the defendants to the said legal notice. Hence, the present Suit has been filed.
4. The defendants have filed a common Written Statement. Various technical objections have been raised in the written statement. It is firstly stated that the present plaint is filed seeking relief of mandatory injunction but is actually a suit for recovery of possession on which proper Court Fee on ad-valorem calculation should be paid. It is further stated that the plaintiff has asked for relief of removal of the defendants from the suit property but has not sought relief of possession and hence, the suit is barred under the Specific Relief Act, 1963. It is stated that the plaintiff has wrongly valued the Suit at Rs.21 lacs and affixed Court Fee accordingly. It is submitted that the market value of the property in possession of the defendant would be around Rs.14 crores and appropriate Court Fees on the said value has not been affixed by the plaintiff. The title of the plaintiff has also been denied by stating that the mutation was got done by the plaintiff by using forged documents. It is further stated that the conversion from leasehold to freehold is also based on forged and fabricated documents. Title is also claimed stating that at the time of marriage of defendants No.1 and 2 the plaintiff had entered into an oral partition with his children being his son and defendant No.2 whereby he gave the suit property to defendant No.2 and assured her that necessary documentation/mutation will be done after all the ceremonies of the marriage are completed.
5. It may be mentioned that defendant No.2 filed CS(OS) No.376/2010 for partition of various properties impleading the plaintiff, her brother and mother as a defendant. CS (OS) 1838/2012 was also filed for various reliefs for the suit property. Both the above suits were disposed of by this Court vide Order dated 23.4.2013. The argument pertaining to th
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
