Back
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH
PARMOD GOYAL
Raj Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Roop Ram – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Parmod Goyal, J.
1. Plaintiffs-appellants being aggrieved by judgment and decree dated 10.09.1994 passed by the Civil Judge, Kurukshetra and judgment and decree dated 14.05.1996 passed by the Court of Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra have preferred present appeal.
2. Plaintiffs-appellants had filed a suit for declaration with consequential relief of possession asserting that land measuring 8 Kanals comprised in khewat no. 1 min, Khatoni No. 5, Khasra No. 19/20(8-0) situated at village Chhapra, Tehsil Thanesar, District Kurukshetra. was mortgaged with defendant for a sum of Rs. 5,000/- vide mortgage-deed dated 22.07.1981. The land was subsequently purchased by plaintiffs vide sale-deed dated 22.03.1989, however, same was sought to be pre-empted by the defendant by filing a suit on the ground that he being co-sharer, is entitled to seek pre-emption of sale. However, suit preferred by defendant was dismissed. Plaintiffs vide their application under Section 4 of the Punjab Redemption of Mortgages Act sought for redemption of suit land after depositing a sum of Rs. 5,000/-. The application preferred by plaintiffs-appellants for redemption of land was allowed by Collector v
A claimant of tenancy must prove a contractual obligation to pay rent; mere possession does not confer tenancy rights.
A landlord cannot obtain possession of surrendered land without an order from the Tahsildar, despite a verified surrender; tenant's rights are upheld until such an order is made.
Possession of mortgagees in land disputes is deemed permissive, ceasing to be adverse post-mortgage extinguishment under relevant Acts, hence limitations governed by those acts apply.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to prove possession in a claim for permanent injunction and the implications of Section 78 of the Transfer of Property Act on th....
Tenancy rights remain suspended during a mortgage but are not extinguished; execution of a mortgage does not imply surrender of tenancy rights.
The court affirmed that the protected tenant's rights under the Tenancy Act cannot be overridden by private agreements or settlements that do not comply with statutory requirements.
Continuance of unrecorded tenancy established due to failure of original tenants to validate their surrender of tenancy, reinforcing tenancy rights under the applicable laws.
Tenancy rights remain in abeyance during the mortgage period and are not extinguished by the execution of a mortgage, allowing the tenant to claim purchase rights post-mortgage.
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
