Back
High Court of Delhi
JAYANT NATH, J.
Laxman Singh & Others
Versus
Urmila Devi & Others
CS(OS) No. 3275 of 2012
Decided on: 28-03-2014
Indian Easement Act - Section 52: Defines a license as a right to do something on the immovable property of the grantor that would be unlawful without such right. Evidence Act - Section 116: Estops a licensee from denying the title of the person in possession. Hindu Succession Act - Section 8: Provides that the mother is a Class-I heir and would succeed to the properties left behind by the deceased son.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs filed a suit for possession, damages, and mesne profits of a property they claimed to be the absolute owners of. The defendants, who were in possession of the property, claimed that the plaintiffs had no title to the property. They argued that the property was purchased benami by the plaintiffs' father and that the plaintiffs were never in possession. The defendants also claimed adverse possession and relied on a will of the plaintiffs' father. The court found that the defendants were licensees and their license had been terminated. The court also found that the plaintiffs had legal possession of the property and that the defendants had no right to continue to retain possession. The court dismissed the defendants' claims and decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiffs.
Finding of the Court:
The court analyzed the status of the defendants as licensees and the rights of the plaintiffs to the property. The court referred to Section 52 of the Indian Easement Act, which defines a license as a right to do something on the immovable property of the grantor that would be unlawful without such right. The court also referred to Section 116 of the Evidence Act, which estops a licensee from denying the title of the person in possession. The court held that the defendants were licensees and their license had been terminated. The court further held that the plaintiffs had legal possession of the property and that the defendants had no right to continue to retain possession. The court also rejected the defendants' claim of adverse possession and the validity of the will.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the defendants were licensees and their license had been terminated. The court further held that the plaintiffs had legal possession of the property and that the defendants had no right to continue to retain possession. The court also rejected the defendants' claim of adverse possession and the validity of the will.
Result: The court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiffs and ordered the defendants to vacate the property. The court also directed the matter of mesne profit and damages to be listed for further proceedings.
Jayant Nath, J.
1. The plaintiffs have filed the present suit for possession, damages and mesne profits. Plaintiff No.2 is the mother and plaintiff No.1 is her son. They claim to be the absolute owners of property being plot No.323/1-A, Block-D (Old No. 229/1-A), Sangam Vihar, New Delhi-110062 measuring 200 sq.yards. The said suit property was purchased by plaintiff No.1 along with his late brother Bhagat Ram whereby each was owner of 100 square yards respectively. It is stated that the seller executed a general power of attorney dated 12.04.1985, an agreement to sell dated 12.04.1985 and a receipt for consideration of Rs.40,000/-. The property is said to be built up having eight rooms, a store room and two wash rooms.
2. The brother of plaintiff No.1 late Bhagat Ram is said to have died a bachelor and issueless about 20 years ago. Hence, it is submitted that his mother, plaintiff No.2 inherited his share to the said property and accordingly, the plaintiffs are the absolute owners.
3. It is stated that about 14 years ago defendants approached the father of plaintiff No.1 late Sh.Ganpat Ram and sought permission to take shelter in the suit property for a few months. Late Sh.Ganpat Ram is stated to have given the said approval inasmuch as he permitted the defendants to reside in one of the rooms in the suit property for some time. On the request of the defendants the duration of stay kept extending. In July 2010 the plaintiffs along with the other family members asked the defendants to vacate the only room in the possession of the defendants as the plaintiffs required the suit property for the purpose of wedding in the family. Sh.Ganpat Ram, the father of plaintiff No.1 died on 20.08.2010. It is further stated that instead of vacating the suit property as requested by the plaintiffs, the defendants sometime after February 2011 filed a suit in the District Court for permanent injunction. The Civil Judge vide order dated 31.05.2012 dismissed the suit. On 18.10.2012 the appeal along with application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was dismissed by the Additional District Judge. It is urged that the defendants are licencees and cannot continue to retain possession. Hence, the present suit has been filed.
4. The defendants in their written statement have stated that the plaintiffs have no title in the suit property inasmuch as the documents produced by the plaintiffs are merely a general power of attorney, agreement to sell, etc. and in accordance with the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Suraj Lamp and Industries Pvt.Ltd. vs. State of Haryana and Anr., (2012)1 SCC 656 the plaintiffs cannot claim to be the owners of the suit property. It is further stated that the property was purchased benami by late Sh.Ganpat Ram in the name of his two minor sons inasmuch as the said brothers were minors when the property was bought. It is next stated that Sh.Ganpat Ram was also a trespasser on the property inasmuch as the property is located in an unauthorised colony and the ownership of the property vests with the Government. It is further stated that the defendants were residing with Sh.Ganpat Ram in joint possession of the property with the permission of Sh.Ganpat Ram to the exclusion of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs were never in possession of the property for the last 18 years. It is admitted that Ganpat Ram permitted/inducted the defendants to reside in the suit property. The defendants also claim that they were taking care of the day to day needs of Late Sh.Ganpat Ram and looking after all aspects of his life.
5. On 25.04.2013 the present suit came up for framing of issues. The court on the said date passed the following order.
“1. The suit is ripe for framing of issues.
2. The counsel for the defendants has handed over proposed issues which are taken on record.
3. The counsel for the plaintiffs states that no issue arises since there are no material pleas in the written statement and the suit insofar as for the
AI
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
