SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Raj) 2892

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
Devendra Kachhawaha, J.
Bhanwar Lal – Appellant
Versus
Sriniwas & Ors. – Respondent
S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 192/2010, S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 206/2010 & S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 240/2010 Connected With S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 197/2010
Decided On : 05-02-2022

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. Manish Singhvi, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Ravi Bhansali, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Dhanesh Saraswat Mr. Dasit Dave (CFA No. 240/2010). Mr. Sajjan Singh with Mr. Prashant Tatia (CFA Nos. 192/2020 & 197/2010). Mr. Manoj Bhandari with Mr. Prateek Surana (CFA No. 206/2010), for the Appellant; Mr. R.K. Thanvi, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Narendra Thanvi & Mr. Mahendra Thanvi, for the Respondent

Headnote:(A) Civil Procedure Code - Sections 10, 13, 42, and 44 - Trust Act - Validity of trust deed and ownership of property - Appeals against eviction orders - High Court set aside judgments of trial court based on faulty interpretations of trust and tenancy laws. (Paras 4, 26, 28, 29, and 30)

(B) Landlord-Tenant Relationship - Establishment of legal attornment and landlord's title - Relationship not established due to absence of formal acknowledgment by tenants. (Para 27)

(C) Limitation Act - Question of limitation concerning knowledge of lease deed and validity - Plaintiffs filed suit beyond the statutory period. (Paras 25, 26)

Facts of the case:
Four civil appeals involving ownership and tenancy of property following eviction decrees by lower court - Disputes concerning trust deeds, lease agreements, and prior court judgments.

Findings of Court:
Appeals granted as trial court erred in establishing facts about ownership and validation of trust deeds; trust document not legally valid, lack of legal attornment, and evidentiary failures on part of the plaintiffs noted.

Issues: 1) Validity of trust deed; 2) Relationship of landlord-tenant; 3) Compliance with notice requirements; 4) Limitation on claims due to delay in suit filings.

Ratio Decidendi: The trust deed was found to be improperly executed and incapable of conferring title; plaintiff's claims were barred by limitation and competent ownership was not established.

Result: Appeals allowed.

Table of Content
1. introduction of appeal cases and judgments. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. factual background of property ownership and rentals. (Para 5 , 6)
3. arguments regarding tenants and landlord relationships. (Para 8 , 17 , 19 , 20)
4. court's analysis of factual disputes. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12)
5. final conclusions of the court based on evidence. (Para 13 , 14 , 15)

JUDGMENT

1. Civil First Appeal No. 192/2010 titled as "Firm Dhanraj Dev Kishan & Anr. v. Sriniwas" has been filed by the appellants/defendants against the judgment & decree dated 26.03.2010 passed by the Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No.3, Bikaner in Civil Original Suit No. 54/2005 titled as "Sriniwas v. Firm Dhanraj Dev Kishan & Anr." whereby, the suit has been decreed and the defendants were directed to hand over the possession of the shop in question to the plaintiff (Sriniwas).

2. Civil First Appeal No. 197/2010 titled as "Firm Dhanraj Dev Kishan & Anr. v. Sriniwas & Ors." has also been filed by the appellants/defendants against the judgment & decree dated 26.03.2010 passed by the Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No. 3, Bikaner in Civil Original Suit No.55/2005 titled as "Sriniwas v. Hanuman Bux & Ors." whereby, the suit has been decreed and it has been ordered that the plaintiff (Sriniwas) is the owner of the property in question, as mentioned in para-12 of the suit and all the proceedings initiated by the defendants were declared ab initio void and at the same time, the defendants were restrained from interfering in the property in question in any manner.

3. Civil First Appeal No. 206/2010 titled as "Omprakash & Anr. v. Sriniwas & Ors." has been filed by the appellants/defendants against the judgment & decree dated 26.03.2010 passed by the Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No.3, Bikaner in Civil Original Suit No. 55/2005 titled as "Sriniwas v. Hanuman Bux & Ors." whereby, the suit has been decreed and it has been ordered that the plaintiff (Sriniwas) is the owner of the property in question, as mentioned in para-12 of the suit and all the proceedings initiated by the defendants were declared ab initio void and at the same time, the defendants were restrained from interfering in the property in question in any manner.

4. Civil First Appeal No. 240/2010 titled as "Bhanwar Lal v. Sriniwas & Ors." has been filed by the appellant/defendant against the judgment & decree dated dated 26.03.2010 passed by the Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No.3, Bikaner in Civil Original Suit No. 55/2005 titled as "Sriniwas v. Hanuman Bux & Ors." whereby, the suit has been decreed and it has been ordered that the plaintiff (Sriniwas) is the owner of the property in question, as mentioned in para-12 of the suit and all the proceedings initiated by the defendants were declared ab initio void and at the same time, the defendants were restrained from interfering in the property in question in any manner.

5. The facts of the cases are that the plaintiff (Sriniwas) had filed a civil suit (No. 54/2005) against the defendants - Firm Dhanraj Dev Kishan and its proprietor Dev Kishan, inter alia, stating therein that a property owned by the plaintiff had been situated at Nokha Mandi, Bikaner being Shop including Nohra No. 34 and the defendants were the tenants over the property in question; the patta of the property in question had been in the name of late Jamnadas; out of the total portion of the Nohra No.34, some of the portion, measuring 180 dargaji, had been sold to the plaintiff by Gyanprakash Bhadani S/o late Onkardutt Bhadani, predecessor-in-title, on 02.09.1986 for a consideration of Rs.30,000/-. It has been averred in the plaint that during the life- time, Shri Onkardutt had authorised his son Gyanprakash @ Gyandutt Bhadani to collect the rent of Rs.300/- from the defendants; that the original landlord Shri Onkardutt died on 10.10.1981. It has further been averred in the plaint that to recover the due rent of Rs.2400/- and to get the possession of the shop and No

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top