Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Courts in India frequently appoint experts (e.g., engineers, commissions) to ascertain building quality post-5 years, driven by disputes over defects, stability, or demolition needs, with no blanket prohibition; limitations may apply to suing developers (e.g., 6-year period) but not expert evidence creation ["Ooi Cheng Huat @ Ooi Peng Huat (suing in his own name and as the executor and trustee of the estate of Linda Patricia Lim Sooi Hong deceased) & Ors vs trustee of the estate of Linda Patricia Lim Sooi Hong deceased) & Ors v Sime Darby Property Bhd and other cases - High Court"]. Yes, appointment is possible and common for evidentiary purposes ["Krishnan. R vs The District Collector - Madras"] ["Prof. D. Shrijay Devaraj Urs VS State of Karnataka - Karnataka"] ["H.R.Johnson(India)Ltd vs V.C.Thomas & Another - Consumer State"].
In the world of property disputes, construction litigation, and real estate valuation, questions about building integrity often arise years after completion. A common query is: can an expert be appointed for ascertaining the quality of building after 5 years? Homeowners, developers, and insurers frequently seek expert opinions on structural quality long after construction, especially in cases of alleged defects, collapses, or valuation needs. However, Indian courts have set clear boundaries on such delayed assessments, prioritizing reliability and timeliness.
This article dives into the legal landscape, drawing from key precedents and analyses. Note: This is general information based on reviewed cases and not specific legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for your situation.
No, legal documents typically do not support appointing an expert solely to ascertain building quality after 5 years as a standard practice. Courts caution against relying on outdated assessments for structural evaluation, limiting such methods to a maximum of 4-5 years due to risks like price stagnancy or structural unreliability. There's a strong preference for contemporaneous evidence—recent surveys or reports conducted close to the relevant time. Kali Charan VS State Of Haryana And Another - 2018 0 Supreme(P&H) 4747
Key reasons include:- Unreliability of extrapolation: Methods like annual increases for valuation become unsafe and unreliable beyond 4-5 years. Kali Charan VS State Of Haryana And Another - 2018 0 Supreme(P&H) 4747- Court preference for direct evidence: When recent comparables exist, older data is rejected. Kali Charan VS State Of Haryana And Another - 2018 0 Supreme(P&H) 4747- No explicit authorization: No reviewed cases directly permit post-5-year expert appointments for quality checks alone.
In building collapse or failure scenarios, courts demand prompt expert involvement. For instance, after a paddy boiling unit collapse, a structural expert (Professor K Rambabu) was appointed quickly to assess causes like overload, with no external impact noted. Delays of 1.5-2 years in reports were criticized, though not always fatal if preliminary surveys were timely. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. VS Buchiyyamma Rice Mill - 2020 7 Supreme 455
Insurance precedents reinforce this: Surveys beyond 30 days breach requirements, underscoring timely action. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. VS Buchiyyamma Rice Mill - 2020 7 Supreme 455
Core limitations stem from land valuation cases, extended to structural quality:
The annual increase method; should not be adopted in any case, for more than 4-5 years. It is not safe to adopt it for more than 4-5 years, as there may be stagnancy in the prices... Kali Charan VS State Of Haryana And Another - 2018 0 Supreme(P&H) 4747
This principle applies by analogy: What may be a reliable standard if the gap is only a few years, may become unsafe and unreliable standard where the gap is larger. Kali Charan VS State Of Haryana And Another - 2018 0 Supreme(P&H) 4747Avinash s/o Shankar Bavne VS Government of Maharashtra, through its Chief Secretary, Home Department - 2023 0 Supreme(Bom) 735 (citing Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel).
Courts reject extrapolation when recent sales data is available: ...when there are comparative sale instances available on record, the Court need not go into the awards which have been passed earlier... Kali Charan VS State Of Haryana And Another - 2018 0 Supreme(P&H) 4747
While direct post-5-year quality checks are unsupported, other cases illustrate expert use in building assessments, often emphasizing expertise over timing or rejecting non-experts.
In a Mysore heritage building dispute (Devaraja Market, over 130 years old), experts from Karnataka Engineering Research Station recommended demolition after tests, despite restoration arguments. The court deferred to these opinions, prioritizing safety, but inspections were contemporaneous with disputes, not decades-delayed. Prof D. Shrijay Devaraj Urs S/o Late Mr. Devaraj Urs VS State Of Karnataka - 2023 Supreme(Kar) 932
Courts distinguish experts from commissioners:- An Advocate Commissioner cannot independently ascertain building age; a qualified expert is required. Banu @ Banumathi VS Muniammal - 2013 Supreme(Mad) 3058- For unauthorized construction, local commissioners note facts, but experts opine on age, quality, and materials: Local Commissioner cannot be treated an expert regarding the various issues, as to the age of the building, quality of the building and material used. Shri Behari Lal Charitable Trust VS Shiv Batra - 2010 Supreme(P&H) 2111
In eviction cases, experts assist commissioners for condition checks, but delays in landlord occupancy trigger assessments, not routine post-5-year probes. M.BASHEER Vs REMANI GOPALAN - 2018 Supreme(Online)(KER) 11241
In silica land cases, courts remitted reports for expert-assisted depth/quality checks, criticizing unscientific prior assessments—even after a decade—but for compensation, not standalone building quality. THOMAS JOSEPH vs STATE OF KERALA - 2011 Supreme(Online)(KER) 13219
Valuation of self-occupied buildings used land-and-building methods via expert reports, justified over alternatives. V. C. Ramachandran VS Commissioner of Wealth-tax, Karnataka - 1979 Supreme(Kar) 261
A consumer case noted defective tiles in a new building used for 6 years, but focused on warranty, not new expert appointment. H.R.Johnson(India)Ltd vs V.C.Thomas & Another
In a university construction dispute over 6 years old, quality checks by independent agencies were suggested amid CBI probe, but not court-mandated. Bharat Drilling and Foundation Treatment Pvt. Ltd. VS Union of India, through secretary, Ministry of Human Resource Development - 2018 Supreme(Jhk) 938
Plaintiff-nominated experts can inspect for violations without court appointment as Local Commissioners, treated as witnesses subject to cross-examination. P. D. Gautam VS Ansal Properties & Infrastructural Ltd. - 2018 Supreme(P&H) 2993
Courts aren't absolute:- Short delays OK: Preliminary reports days/weeks post-incident (e.g., November 2006 opinion after April 2005 event) if consistent. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. VS Buchiyyamma Rice Mill - 2020 7 Supreme 455- Justified multiples: Multiple experts permissible if not dilatory. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. VS Buchiyyamma Rice Mill - 2020 7 Supreme 455- Party witnesses: Plaintiffs can send experts for inspection, examined later. P. D. Gautam VS Ansal Properties & Infrastructural Ltd. - 2018 Supreme(P&H) 2993
However, no carve-outs for 5+ year gaps in quality checks; justification needs preliminary data.
In rent control or eviction, experts aid on dilapidation, but timing matters. Vasantha Bhagaval Singh VS Anthony - 2012 Supreme(Ker) 212M.BASHEER Vs REMANI GOPALAN - 2018 Supreme(Online)(KER) 11241
Property disputes hinge on credible evidence. Delays erode reliability, so act promptly. For tailored advice, engage a legal professional familiar with your jurisdiction's nuances.
References:1. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. VS Buchiyyamma Rice Mill - 2020 7 Supreme 455: Structural expert post-collapse; timely reports.2. Kali Charan VS State Of Haryana And Another - 2018 0 Supreme(P&H) 4747: 4-5 year limits; contemporaneous preference.3. Avinash s/o Shankar Bavne VS Government of Maharashtra, through its Chief Secretary, Home Department - 2023 0 Supreme(Bom) 735: Valuation analogies.4. Additional cases as cited inline.
#BuildingLaw, #ExpertWitness, #ConstructionDisputes
Clause 5(b) of the JVA reads: 5. ... He detailed in his expert report the various changes and photos of the alterations made to Premise 1 (referred to in the report as Shop-Office Unit No. 5). ... Clause 5(e) of the JVA states that the defendant is to deliver to the plaintiff the "Landowner's Lots" within 4 years from the date of the JVA i.e. by 27 October 2013. Premises 1, 2, 3 and 4 which were delivered to the plaintiff are the "Landowner's Lots". ... [7] The plaintiff contends that....
50 years ago. ... That upon directions of the third respondent, the Karnataka Engineering Research Station appointed an experts team to conduct spot inspection and submit a report. The said team recommended demolition and reconstruction of the market building. 1.5. ... of Task Force and Special Heritage Committees, who have conducted extensive tests as noted above; Mysore Urban Development Authority obtained the report of Technical Division of the Director of Karnataka Engineering Research Station and Executive Engineer....
That upon directions of the third respondent, the Karnataka Engineering Research Station appointed an experts team to conduct spot inspection and submit a report. The said team recommended demolition and reconstruction of the market building. 1.5. ... 50 years ago. ... of Task Force and Special Heritage Committees, who have conducted extensive tests as noted above; Mysore Urban Development Authority obtained the report of Technical Division of the Director of Karnataka Engineering Research Station and Executive Engineer,....
and the quality of the construction and other works of the building were very low. ... 5. ... f) an ad-interim directing inspection of the building in question by an expert structural civil engineer to check the standard, fitness, structural stability, quality of the construction and other works in the building. ... Therefore, I hold that the Learned District Commission has rightly allowed the application filed by the complainant for expert exami....
. 0.5% voidage is acceptable as excess voidage in the range of 0.5% to 2.5% is considered normal. ... [132]The Defendant claimed that SD3’s testimony on poor workmanship is supported by the Third Party’s appointed expert witness, SPK1. ... of the constructed building. ... [86]The Defendant submits that SD2 is an expert in assessing the integrity of the In- situ Concrete and/or the building structure. ... The Defendant has breached the contract by s....
The same building was valued on the basis of the report furnished by an expert valuer at Rs. 2,06,127 for the five assessment years 1965-66 to 1969-70. The said decision has not been challenged by the assessee. ... He submitted that the adoption of land and building method was not justified. ... 5. Sri S. R. ... of the opinion of an expert valuer. ... It is No.5, Richmond Road, Bangalore. The area of the site is 23,280 square feet. The built area is 3,845 square feet....
The rent control court had by that order appointed Sri.Jijo K.S., Advocate, to inspect the petition schedule building along with an expert engineer. The Advocate Commissioner could not, however, secure the services of the expert. Consequently, he alone inspected the petition schedule property. ... schedule building with the assistance of an expert engineer, but on account of the non- availability of the expert engineer appointed by the court, the Adv....
The report submitted by the Advocate Commissioner is remitted to the same Commissioner who shall ascertain the quality and depth of silica in the land acquired with the assistance of an expert to be appointed by the learned Sub Judge. ... Ext.P4, order dated 28.09.2011 on I.A.No.1362 of 2011 (in L.A.R.Nos.154, 155, 156 and 158 of 2003) of the court of learned Sub Judge, Cherthala is set aside to the extent it concerned ascertainment of quality and depth of silica in the land acquired (except ascertaining#HL_END....
If that be so, it can very safely be concluded that for the last 6 years, the complainant is using the aforesaid defective premium quality ceramic tiles which were laid for the living room, dinning room and sit out of the newly constructed building. ... The aforesaid tiles have already laid permanently in the living room, dinning room and sit out of the newly constructed building and the complainant is residing in the said newly constructed residential building for the last 6 years....
In the instant application, the building expert is not to be appointed by the trial Court, rather the nominated person of the plaintiff would inspect the site and thereafter, he can be examined by the plaintiff as a witness. ... The said building expert would be examined by the plaintiff in his evidence and the same shall be available to the defendant for cross-examination and his report would be subject to objection by the defendant as well. 5. ... The report, if any, prepared by the....
Moreover, UGC/MHRD has stopped the release of fund to the CUJ under the capital head. It has also been stated that subsequently the CBI vide, letter dated 17.08.2017 has advised the CUJ to take its own decision in the light of its findings in the investigation. It has been submitted on behalf of the CUJ that since more than 6 years have elapsed from the construction of the building, its quality is required to be checked by an independent agency. On perusal of the record it appears that in view of the letter of the CBI, no decision has yet been taken by the respondent-CUJ i....
The learned counsel also fairly submitted that only an expert can be appointed to ascertain the age of the building. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the defendants filed the application in I.A.No.25 of 2007 under Order XXVI Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Code for appointment of Commissioner and not for Advocate Commissioner. Therefore, for ascertaining the age of the building, the parties can seek for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to file a report with regard to the age of the building only with the assistance of a qualifi....
5. After remand, the trial court appointed an Expert Commissioner for obtaining a report on the alleged damage to the building.
There is no quarrel with the proposition propounded in Prem Singhs case (supra) but the local commissioner and expert are to be examined for two different purposes. Therefore, Local Commissioner cannot be treated an expert regarding the various issues, as to the age of the building, quality of the building and material used. Further, reliance has been placed upon Pritam Singh and another v. Sunder Lal and others, 1991(1) R.R.R. 356 : 1990(2) PLR 191 to say, that whether the Local Commissioner is to be appointed or not, is a sole prerogative of the Court and the revisional C....
Whether the disputed document can be sent to an expert for ascertaining the age of the signature found therein.
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
