Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
NIDHI GUPTA
Joginder Singh – Appellant
Versus
Surjit Kaur – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Nidhi Gupta, J.
Present Second Appeal has been filed by the plaintiff against the concurrent judgments and decrees of the learned Courts below, whereby suit filed by the appellant for mandatory injunction, has been dismissed by both the Courts below.
2. The pleaded case of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff had permitted defendants No.1 to 8 and their family members to look after and use the suit land as licensee. Plaintiff had permitted the said defendants to stay in the suit property as licensee on the condition that they would vacate the same as and when required by the plaintiff. The said defendants had accordingly continued to use the suit land without payment of any license fee. Plaintiff revoked the land license in February 1995 and asked defendants to vacate the same. However, the defendants had refused to do the needful. Hence, the present suit was filed on 31.05.1995
3. Vide judgment and decree dated 08.11.2007, learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana had dismissed the suit of the plaintiff with costs. The appeal filed by the plaintiff was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Ludhiana vide judgment and decree dated 29.03.2010 with costs. Hen
Possession based on a license can be challenged if contradictions in agreements and evidence arise, impacting the validity of claims under statutory provisions.
Possession under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act does not confer ownership but protects current possession rights.
Part-performance – Protection of a prospective purchaser/transferee of his possession of property involved, is conditionally available.
Registered documents are publicly known and a suit for declaration of fraud must be filed within the limitation period or it is barred; possession must be proven with cogent evidence.
Agreements for new tenure land lacking collector permission are void under Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act, nullifying claims for specific performance and possession under Section 53(A) of the ....
A suit for injunction can be maintained based on possession derived from a registered agreement for sale, despite the absence of a formal sale deed.
Ownership claims must be substantiated by credible evidence; the doctrine of part performance under Section 53A does not apply without sufficient proof of lawful possession.
An unregistered sale agreement cannot invoke Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, and delay in seeking execution constitutes laches, barring specific performance claims.
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
