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
| 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
Anathula Sudhakar vs. LRs P. Buchi Reddy & Ors.
Bhagwat Sharan through LRs vs. Purushottam
Bhaskar Woman Joshi vs. Shri Narayan Rambilas agarwal
Dy. Commissioner, Hardoi vs. Rama Krishna Narain & Ors.
Himani Alloys Limited vs. Tata Steel Limited
Iqbal Singh Marwah & Anr. vs. Meenakshi Marwah & Anr.
Kotha Seshamma and ors. vs. Pittala venkayya and ors.
Laxmi Narayan vs. Poonam Chand
Mahendra Rahunathdasa vs. Vishvanath
Muni Lal vs. Oriental Fire & General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.
N.Kamalam and anr. vs. Ayyasamy & Anr.
N.R. Narayan Swamy vs. B. Francis Jagan
Noharlal Verma vs. District Cooperative Central Bank Ltd. Jagdalpur
Raja Mohammad Amir Ahmad Khan v Muncipal Board of Sitapur and another
Ramadhar Shrivas vs. Bhagwandas
Sona Bala Bora and ors. vs. Jyotirindra Bhattacharjee
State of Bihar vs. Radhakrisha Singh
T.A.V. Trust, Alleppey vs. C.I.T. Kerala
T.V. Ramakrishna Reddy vs. M. Mallappa
Union of India & Ors. vs. West Coast Paper Mills Ltd. & Anr.
Union of India vs. Ibrahim Uddin & Anr.
Union of India vs. Vasavi Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. & Ors.
V.Satyamarayanaraju and another vs. J. Hanumayamma and another
A suit for possession must include a declaration of title when there is a dispute over ownership; mere possession cannot support recovery claims.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the suit was maintainable under the Indian Trusts Act, as the defendant failed to prove the absence of a jural relationship between the partie....
Trust properties cannot be alienated by a trustee without specific authority, and mere revenue entries do not confer ownership rights against trust interests.
In a suit for declaration of title, the plaintiff must prove ownership; failure to seek possession forfeits claims against an adverse possessor.
The court held that a sale deed remains valid despite non-payment of consideration, affirming ownership rests with the purchaser as per registered transaction under the Transfer of Property Act.
A tenant cannot deny the landlord's title, and eviction can be granted based on established tenancy rights, even if the title is not conclusively proven.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.