Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIPIN CHANDER NEGI
Nirdosh Chauhan – Appellant
Versus
Sanotosh Sharma – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Bipin Chander Negi, J.
1. The suit in the case at hand was filed by the present respondents. The suit filed was for possession of a residential flat bearing No. 7, Block H, Knolls Wood, Chotta Shimla consisting of two bed rooms, one kitchen, one drawing room, lobby-cum-dinning Balcony, one store, one toilet (suit property) and for recovery of use and occupation charges thereof. The respondents in the suit filed claimed that their predecessor-in-interest had been allotted the flat/suit property by the Himachal Pradesh, Housing Board, Urban Development authority in the year 1981. The respondents claimed that they are permanent residents of Punjab. On the other hand, it was averred in the plaint that the present appellant is an employee of the Himachal Pradesh, Housing Board, Urban Development authority and is also an owner of a flat adjoining the suit premises. Taking advantage of the fact that the present respondents do not reside in Himachal, appellant herein is alleged to have occupied the suit premises. The illegal occupation of the flat was noticed on 03.08.2010, when they visited the suit premises and found carpenters working therein. On questioning the carpenters, it
The court upheld the presumption of regularity of official documents, affirming that the burden of proof for tenancy lies with the claimant, which was not met by the appellant.
The High Court clarified the necessity for fresh determination of market rates for occupation charges, emphasizing the lack of co-ownership by the respondent and the error in previous appellate findi....
In exercise of jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC, concurrent findings of fact cannot be upset by High Court unless findings so recorded are shown to be perverse.
The burden of proof lies on the party asserting a claim, and failure to substantiate a tenancy claim results in dismissal of the appeal.
Permissive possession does not mature into adverse without hostile animus known to owner and proof of continuous, open denial of title for 12 years; no re-appreciation of concurrent factual findings ....
Continuous possession must be proven to obtain an injunction; mere revenue entries are not conclusive if rebutted by evidence.
The absence of a written requisition for property possession negates claims of unlawful retention, necessitating statutory remedies for resolution.
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
