J. J. MUNIR
Uttar Pradesh Avas Evam Vikas Parishad, Lucknow – Appellant
Versus
Virendra Kumar – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
J.J. Munir, J.
1. This is a defendants’ second appeal arising out of a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction.
2. Original Suit No.1187 of 1991 was instituted by the four plaintiffs, Virendra Kumar, Sheo Singh, Rampal Singh Chauhan and Km. Pushpa with a case that plaintiff-respondents Nos.1 to 3 are tenants in the premises detailed at the foot of the plaint since the year 1970 on a monthly rent of Rs.300/-. Defendant-respondent No.5, Sirajuddin son of Fariduddin, arrayed as defendant No.3 to the suit, was the owner of the said premises and the land comprising it. He agreed to transfer the premises aforesaid in the plaintiff-respondents' favour, and for the purpose, executed a registered agreement to sell dated 5. 04.1990. The agreement to sell last mentioned (for short, 'the suit agreement') covenants to transfer an area of 5000 square yards, situate in Khasra No.5751M of Khewat Nos.1 and 15, Qasba Meerut (for short, 'the suit property'). The further case of the plaintiff-respondents is that they are residing in the premises under reference as tenants and now by virtue of the suit agreement have contracted a right to purchase the suit property for a total sale consider
Possession under an agreement to sell can establish a possessory title, necessitating a survey for property location disputes.
In land disputes, precise identification of property is crucial; courts must appoint a survey commission to ascertain location when ownership is contested.
Landowners must establish clear title or proof of ownership against government claims to avoid dismissal of suits for injunctions on public land, as mere possession or revenue entries do not suffice.
Mere possession or sporadic revenue entries do not confer ownership title; clear documentation and continuous proof of possession is necessary, especially against government parties.
The court affirmed that ownership and possession can be established through valid sale-deeds and corroborating evidence, even against claims of unsettled land.
The judgment establishes that continuous possession and proper documentation can affirm ownership, while claims of adverse possession require clear evidence and specific pleading.
Proper identification of property ownership is essential in disputes, and prior deeds must reflect accurate details to establish rightful title.
Boundaries specified in a sale deed prevail over measurements when determining property ownership.
Point of law: The principle of lis pendens is still settled principle of law. In this connection, the Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Ram Peary, AIR 1978 All 318] has considered the scope o....
The sale deed for the property did not require permission from the Collector, and the suit was maintainable without a declaration of title.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.