Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
SANDEEP JAIN
B.N. Tripathi – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondent
Key Points: - Plaintiffs awarded possession and damages for non-delivery of possession, with specific damages for loss of profit, escalation costs, and building plan implications (!) (!) (!) (!) - Trial court dismissed; appellate court allowed appeal, holding KDA unlawfully withheld possession without justification and that plaintiffs suffered financial and livelihood losses (!) (!) (!) - Lease deed terms, payment of premium, and illegality of prior interest demand (Rs. 44,420.22) established in prior proceedings; possession not proven by KDA with documentary evidence (!) (!) (!) (!) - Court relied on project report showing expected monthly profit Rs. 13,700 and awarded damages at that rate plus pendentilite and 6% interest; cost escalation Rs. 5 lakhs with similar interest (!) (!) (!) (!) - Decree includes mandatory injunction to deliver possession within one month and related reliefs including building plan, costs, and exemplary costs due to harassment (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. plaintiffs' claim for possession and damages (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 2. defendants' denial and defense of claims (Para 12 , 19 , 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 3. court's analysis of lease deed and possession issues (Para 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 39 , 40 , 41) |
| 4. court's decision to allow the appeal and decree relief (Para 60 , 61) |
Judgment :
Sandeep Jain, J.
1. The instant appeal has been filed by the plaintiff under Section 96 CPC against the impugned judgment and decree dated 20.4.2016 passed by the 2nd Additional Judge Small Cause Court, Kanpur Nagar in O.S. no. 243 of 2009 B.N. Tripathi and others vs. State of U.P. and another, whereby the plaintiffs suit for the relief of mandatory injunction directing the defendants to deliver the possession of the disputed plot and award of damages of Rs. 41,16,800/- with interest @18% p.a. has been dismissed.
Plaint case
2. The plaintiffs filed O.S. no. 243 of 2009 against the defendant no.1 State of Uttar Pradesh and defendant no. 2 Kanpur Development Authority (KDA) with the averments that they are the joint lessees of plot No. 56, Block 'A', Scheme 39, Jajmau, Kanpur, hereinafter referred to as the disputed plot, admeasu
Lease agreements must specify possession delivery terms; unjustified withholding of possession can lead to entitlement for damages reflecting lost profits and escalation costs.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that concurrent findings of facts and law recorded by the lower courts cannot be interfered with unless they are found to be perverse to the extent....
In a suit for permanent injunction, the plaintiff must establish possession; failure to contest evidence leads to confirmation of ownership and injunction.
In a suit for permanent injunction, the plaintiff must establish possession of the property to obtain relief, and mere claims of ownership by a defendant do not suffice to cloud the title of the plai....
In a suit for permanent injunction, a plaintiff must establish possession; mere claims of ownership without evidence do not suffice to challenge established rights.
The court affirmed that possession established via lawful means prevails against forcible dispossession and clarified the maintainability of civil suits for possession regarding title irrespective of....
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
