Back
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JAIPUR BENCH)
MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA, J
Rajasthan Financial Corporation – Appellant
Versus
Consolidated Consultant – Respondent
Judgment :
1.This civil first appeal has been filed by the appellants- defendants (for short 'the defendants') against the judgment and decree dated 08.04.2019 passed by Additional District Judge No.3, Jaipur Metropolitan (for short 'the trial Court') in civil suit No. 47/2001 (1518/2014), whereby the trial Court decreed the respondent-plaintiff's (for short 'the plaintiff') suit for declaration and mandatory injunction.
2. Plaintiff filed a suit against the defendants on account of debiting the amount of interest from the account of plaintiff by them and to restrain them from selling/transferring the land in dispute and handing over the vacant possession of the land to the plaintiff after removing the Plants and Machinery therefrom.
3. Brief facts of the case are that defendant No. 1 had published an advertisement in a daily newspaper Rajasthan Patrika on 19.11.1988 for auctioning the land and building of M/s Premier Metal Industries Pvt. Ltd. situated at 47, Industrial Area, Jhotwara, Jaipur, which was acquired by the defendants in May, 1987 under Section 29 of theState Financial Corporation Act, 1951, on account of default in repayment of loan by M/s Premier Metal Industries Pvt.
The defendants wrongfully debited interest and failed to transfer possession as per the agreement; the plaintiff had not defaulted on payments.
The courts ruled that discrepancies in agreements and the existence of a registered sale-deed established the defendants as rightful owners, negating the petitioner's claim for a temporary injunction....
Point of Law : An appeal against exercise of discretion is said to be an appeal on principle. The Appellate Court will not reassess the material and seek to reach a conclusion different from the one ....
The court held that plaintiffs failed to establish readiness to perform the contract, limiting their recovery to the return of the advance payment with interest.
The court found the specific performance suit invalid due to the sale agreement being deemed fabricated, emphasizing that such claims cannot coexist with adverse possession expectations.
A claim of adverse possession cannot be sustained if possession stems from an agreement to sell, which legally acknowledges the owner's title.
Possession under a contract is not permissive if occupant asserts ownership; adverse possession requires clear hostility, which was lacking in this case.
The plaintiff is entitled to interest on the auction bid amount due to the defendants' delay in executing the sale deed and delivering possession.
Settlement record of rights does not extinguish prior title, and collusive judgments lack binding authority on necessary parties.
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
