Back
2016 Supreme(Del) 3060
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
SH. BAIJ NATH – Appellant
Versus
MURTI BHAGWAN JAGANNATHJI MAHARAJ & ANR. – Respondents
RSA No. 229/2016
Decided On : 22-08-2016
For the Appellant :Mr. R.L. Kohli, Advocate.
A licensee is estopped from questioning the title of the licensor, and possession obtained through a license does not grant entitlement to illegally expanded portions.
Headnote:
Licensee - Property Dispute - Code Of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) - Section 100
Fact of the Case:
The respondent, an idol of the temple, filed a suit for mandatory injunction against the appellant, who was a licensee in a tin shed within the temple premises. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the respondent, and the first appellate court upheld the decision.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant was a licensee in the suit property and was estopped from questioning the title of the respondent. It also held that the suit for mandatory injunction was maintainable, and the appellant's possession of an illegally expanded portion did not entitle him to occupy it.
Issues: The main issues were the ownership of the suit property, the appellant's status as a licensee, and the maintainability of the suit for mandatory injunction.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 to establish that the appellant, as a licensee, was estopped from challenging the respondent's title. It also emphasized that the suit for mandatory injunction was maintainable, and the appellant's illegal expansion of possession did not grant him entitlement to occupy the expanded portion.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the second appeal under Section 100 CPC, finding no substantial question of law to be entertained.
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
1. This Regular Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of the Code Of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) impugning the concurrent Judgments of the courts below; of the Trial Court dated 8.9.2014 and the First Appellate Court dated 11.5.2016; by which the suit for mandatory injunction etc of the respondent no.1/idol of the temple has been decreed against the appellant/defendant/licensee. The following decree has been passed by the trial court:-
“It is ordered that the suit of the plaintiff is partly decreed. The plaintiffs are held entitled to the decree of mandatory injunction and the defendant is directed to remove himself and his goods from the suit property i.e. tin shed covered with plastic tirpal and the back portion of the garage as shown in red and yellow colour in the site plan annexed with the plaint i.e. Ex.PW1/4. The plaintiffs are held entitled to decree of perpetual injunction and the defendant and his representatives are hereby restrained from making any addition/alteration in the suit property. The plaintiffs are also held entitled to the mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- per month from 21.09.2007 till the defendant hands over the possession of the suit property to the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs are also entitled to the cost of the suit.”
2. A reading of the judgments of the courts below show that the case of the respondent no.1/plaintiff no.1/idol was that the appellant/defendant was appointed as a Chowkidar and was allotted a small tin shed admeasuring 10 X 4 feet to reside in the temple. He was granted a license to stay in this tin shed in terms of the Agreement dated 20.9.1986. As the appellant/defendant failed to perform his duties to the satisfaction of the respondent no.1/plaintiff no.1, therefore the license was terminated by a Legal Notice dated 10.10.2006, and thereafter the subject suit came to be filed.
3. Appellant/defendant claimed that the suit was liable to be dismissed as the respondents/plaintiffs are guilty of concealment of the fact that an earlier suit for declaration was filed which was dismissed in default and the appeal against the same was also dismissed. It is pleaded that the appellant is in possession for the last 40-50 years i.e. since 1963 and the respondents/plaintiffs have forged documents with respect to the license of the appellant/defendant in the suit property. The ownership of the respondent no.1/plaintiff no.1 of the suit property was also denied. Suit was prayed to be dismissed.
4. After pleadings were complete trial court framed the following issues:-
“(1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree of mandatory injunction, as prayed for? OPP
(2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the recovery of damages, as prayed for? OPP
(3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree of permanent injunction, as prayed for? OPP
(4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree of mesne profit, if so, at what rate? OPP
(5) Whether the plaintiff has no locus-standi to file the present suit? OPD
(6) Whether the suit filed by the plaintiff is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? OPD
(7) Whether the plaintiff has not paid the proper Court fees, therefore, the suit filed by him is liable to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC? OPD
(8) Whether the suit filed by the plaintiff does not disclose any cause of action, hence, liable to be rejected under Order 7 rule 11 CPC? OPD.
(9) Relief.”
5. The main issue relates to the aspect as to whether the respondent no.1/plaintiff no.1 is the owner of the suit property and as to whether the appellant/defendant was a licensee in the same. Another issue to be examined is as to what is the effect of the earlier suit for declaration filed by the respondent no.1/plaintiff no.1 being dismissed in default.
6. At this stage, I would seek to refer to paras 5, 6, 8, 9, 10 and 11 of the judgment of the first appellate court which deal with the issues at hand, and these paras read as under:-
“5. It has been contended that plaintiff has s
