Back
K.N.SINGH, M.H.KANIA
Krishna Ram Mahale (Dead) , By His Lrs. – Appellant
Versus
Shobha Venkat Rao – Respondent
Key Points:
- The Court affirmed that a person in settled possession of property cannot be dispossessed except by recourse to law. [8][9]
- The appeal by defendant No. 3 was dismissed; special leave under Article 136 was refused due to his reckless false statements and attempts to evade the decree. [10][11]
- The trial court decreed possession in favour of the plaintiff and ordered payment of mesne profits. [6]
- The High Court upheld the trial court’s finding that defendant No. 3 unlawfully obtained possession by collusion and without the plaintiff’s consent. [7]
- The Court noted that the appellant’s claim that the plaintiff was dead was made recklessly without any attempt to ascertain the truth. [10]
- The agreements, although termed licences, were held to be sub‑leases, making the plaintiff’s continued possession lawful even after the licence period. [7]
- The appellant was ordered to pay costs throughout the proceedings. [11]
- The Court stated that forcible possession is not permitted in India; possession must be obtained through a court. (!)
- The Court appointed a receiver to take possession of the business and premises and to place the plaintiff in possession as his agent. [12]
- The receiver may seek police assistance to enforce the decree, and the decree may be executed with police help if necessary. [12]
JUDGMENT
KANIA, J.:— This is an appeal against the judgment of a Division Bench of the High Court of Bombay in First Appeal No. 283 of 1969 by special leave granted by this Court under Art. 136 of the Constitution.
2. We propose to consider first whether any interference with the judgment of the High Court is called for in this appeal and hence, we intend to take note of such facts as are relevant to consider that question.
3. Respondent was the plaintiff in Suit No. 725 of 1959 filed by her in the Bombay City Civil Court and the appellant was defendant No. 3. For the sake of convenience, we propose to refer to the parties by their description in the suit.
4. On December 25, 1956 defendant No. 3 entered into an agreement whereby he granted permission to the plaintiff to conduct the business of a restaurant known as "Meenakshi Bhuvan" which later came to be known as "Central Cafe Udipi" of which he was the owner and which was conducted in tenanted premises. This restaurant was situated at Vishvas Nivas, King Edward Road, Parel, Bombay. The period of this agreement was for five years commencing from December 25, 1956 with an option to renew the same. Under the agreement, defendant No. 3
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
