Back
2018 Supreme(All) 2493
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Siddharth, J.
Ajay Nigam And Anothers – Appellants
Versus
Km. Asha Nigam – Respondent
Second Appeal No. -29 of 2018
Decided On : 11-09-2018
For the Appellant : Kshitij Shailendra, Ravi Kiran Jain
For the Respondent: Swapnil Kumar
The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of the Easement Act, Specific Relief Act, and Civil Procedure Code in determining ownership, possession rights, and procedural matters in a property dispute.
Headnote:
ownership - property dispute - Easement Act, Specific Relief Act, Civil Procedure Code - The court discussed the ownership of the disputed property, the status of the defendants as licensees, the termination of their license, valuation and court fees, and the relief entitled to the plaintiff. The court interpreted the Easement Act and Specific Relief Act to determine the ownership and possession rights, and the Civil Procedure Code for procedural matters.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendants for possession of a disputed property, alleging ownership and seeking mesne profits. The trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, but the lower appellate court's judgment was found to be inadequate and the matter was remanded for further consideration.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court found in favor of the plaintiff on issues of ownership, status of the defendants as licensees, termination of their license, valuation and court fees, and relief entitled to the plaintiff. The lower appellate court's judgment was set aside due to inadequacy and the matter was remanded for further consideration.
Issues: Ownership, status of defendants as licensees, termination of license, valuation and court fees, relief entitled to the plaintiff, compliance with procedural rules.
Ratio Decidendi: The trial court's findings on ownership, status of defendants as licensees, termination of license, valuation and court fees, and relief entitled to the plaintiff were upheld. The lower appellate court's judgment was set aside due to inadequacy and the matter was remanded for further consideration.
Final Decision: The lower appellate court's judgment was set aside and the matter was remanded for further consideration within a specified time frame.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Shri Kshitij Shailendra, learned counsel for the appellants and Shri Swapnil Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents.
2. This is defendant's second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 23.08.2017 passed by Additional District Judge/ Fast Track Court, Agra in Civil Appeal No. 49 of 2017 and judgment and decree dated 18.02.2017 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court No.-5, Agra in Original Suit No. 5 of 2008 (Kumari Asha Nigam v. Ajay Nigam & another).
3. The plaintiff instituted original suit against the defendants praying for a decree of mandatory injunction as well as a decree for pendente lite and future mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 10,000/- per month till delivery of actual possession in respect of accommodation situated at the first floor and ground floor forming part of house no. B-10-A (Nagar Nigam No. 36/160) situated at New Agra, Agra.
4. Plaintiff's case is that she is owner of house no. B-10-A, Nagar Nigam No. 36/160, situated at New Agra, Agra; that the aforesaid property is two storied and was purchased by her vide sale deed dated 19.07.1971; that defendant no. 1, Ajay Nigam, is her nephew and defendant no. 2 is his wife; that the defendants are in possession of two rooms situated on the first floor and the remaining part thereof is lying vacant; that defendants are using the drawing room, latrine, bathroom, kitchen and side gallery situated on the ground floor and there possession is in the capacity of licensees; that defendants use abusive language against her and the plaintiff and defendants had entered into scuffle with her many times; that defendants have pressurized the plaintiff to give the disputed property to them to which the plaintiff had not agreed and incensed by the same they have threatened the plaintiff of dire consequences; that defendants have no right and title over the disputed property and their license has been canceled by the plaintiff by notice dated 22.11.2007 but they have not vacated the same and she is entitled to get Rs. 10,000/-towards mesne profit from the defendants; that the period of notice has come to an end of 25.11.2007 but the defendants have not vacated the disputed house therefore the suit is being instituted for the reliefs prayed.
5. Defendants filed their written statements admitting their possession over the suit property but denied any use of abusive language against the plaintiff and extension of any threat to her; that defendant no 1 claimed that he is residing in the disputed property since his childhood and defendant no. 2 came in possession over the same after her marriage with the defendant no. 1 in 2006; that defendants denied any receipt of notice terminating their license and stated that plaintiff has no right to dispossess them and they are not liable to pay Rs. 10,000/- per month as mesne profit to the plaintiff; that in case the court comes to the conclusion that the defendants are in unauthorized possession over the suit property then the plaintiff should institute a suit for taking possession from them in accordance with law and the present suit alleging them to be unauthorized occupants is not maintainable; that the suit has been instituted as a counter blast to the Criminal Case no. 2479 of 2004 and it is barred by the Sections 38, 39 and 41 of Specific Relief Act; that plaintiff is teacher in Anglo Bengali Girls Inter College, Agra since 1966 and is unmarried; that she used to live with her father, mother and brother jointly at Muzaffarkhan, Agra; that the financial condition of plaintiff was not such that she could have purchased the property in 1971; that plaintiff was member of joint hindu family and the disputed property was purchased from the fund of joint hindu family and was purchased in the name of plaintiff since there was requirement of further space; that the defendant no. 1 stated that the mother of the plaintiff and his grand-mother informed him about the aforesaid facts; plaintiff used to dem
