Deepak Aggarwal & Anr vs Shakuntala Devi on 7 February, 2019
50. As regards the proposed issue no.5 also in view of the verdict of
this Court in "Ramesh Kumar Handoo Vs. Binay Kumar Basu"
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 91 (2.47 seconds)Suit No.:9077/16 Rani vs . Devender & Ors. on 24 December, 2018
20.Now what is to be seen is the status of the defendants in the suit
property. Defendant no.1 is the son of the plaintiff. A child can
live with his parents for long but this does not mean that he
acquires any interest in the property because of the same. The
status of the child is that of a permissive one. He is not even a
licensee. The defendants are only in the suit property in the
capacity of permissive possessor. Our own Hon'ble High Court
in Ramesh Kumar Handoo vs. Binay Kumar Basu, RSA
286/07 dated 19.11.2007 has held in para 19 that:
Page No. 12/20
Suit no.:9077/16 Rani vs. Devender & Ors.
Renuka W/O Sh. Devender vs Rani W/O Late Dharamvir Singh on 13 October, 2020
13. Next, Ld. Trial Court rightly relied on the Delhi High judgment dt.
19.11.2007 of Ramesh Kumar Handoo v. Binay Kumar Basu, (RSA
268/07) to hold that defendants are merely permissive users of the property
in question.
Kailash Devi vs . Rishi Kumar & Anr. Cs No. 795/19 on 20 December, 2022
10. He also placed reliance on another judgment passed by
the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Shri Ramesh Kumar
Handoo And Anr. vs Shri Binay Kumar Basu decided on 19
November, 2007 wherein it was held as under:
Sh. Sanjay Kumar vs Sh. Moti Chand on 15 March, 2023
(Ref: Ramesh Kumar Handoo Vs. Binay Kumar
Basu, (2007) ILR 10 Delhi 79).
Civ Suit 75/20 Abdul Kareem vs . Mohd Ahmad & Anr. on 27 March, 2023
newspaper. He submitted that the defendants are unauthorized
occupants having no legal right or title in the suit property,
therefore, they may be ordered to remove their belongings. He
also placed reliance on a judgment passed by the Hon'ble High
Court of Delhi in the case of Shri Ramesh Kumar Handoo And
Anr. vs Shri Binay Kumar Basu decided on 19 November, 2007
wherein it was held as under:
Jagwati vs . Yogender @ Bhim & Ors. on 22 July, 2023
Concept of permissive possession is different from concept
of a licensor. A child lives with his parents in the house of
the parents under a permissive possession and not strictly
as a licensee. No rights akin to the rights of a licensee are
available to a child. (Ramesh Kumar Handoo Vs. Binay
Kumar Basu: RSA 286/07 dated 19.11.2007).
Kavita Gambhir vs Hari Chand Gambhir & Anr. on 7 September, 2009
In support of these
submissions learned counsel placed reliance on three reported
decisions of this court reported as 160 (2009) Delhi Law Times 642,
"National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd. v. Wig Brothers Builders
& Engineers Ltd.", 2002 (65) DRJ 146, "Ranbir Yadav v. State Bank of
India" and 81 (1999) Delhi Law Times 370, "Amrit Kaur v. M/s. Om
Prakash Fateh Chand Ltd. & Anr." and one unreported decision in
RFA No. 286/2007 " Ramesh Kumar Handoo vs Binay Kumar Basu"
Virender Kumar & Anr. vs Jaswant Rai & Anr. on 10 March, 2011
34. Concept of permissive possession is different from concept of
a licensor. A child lives with his parents in the house of the
parents under a permissive possession and not strictly as a
licensee. No rights akin to the rights of a licensee are available to
a child. (Ramesh Kumar Handoo Vs. Binay Kumar Basu: RSA
286/07 dated 19.11.2007).
Madhu Singh vs Jai Singh on 30 April, 2010
In
support of these submissions learned counsel placed
reliance on three reported decisions of this court
reported as 160 (2009) Delhi Law Times 642,
"National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd. Vs. Wig
Brothers Builders & Engineers Ltd.", 2002 (65) DRJ
146, "Ranbir Yadav Vs. State Bank of India" and 81
(1999) Delhi Law Times 370, "Amrit Kaur Vs. M/s. Om
Prakash Fateh Chand Ltd. & Anr." and one
unreported decision in RFA No. 286/2007 "Ramesh
Kumar Handoo Vs. Binay Kumar Basu" decided on
19/11/07. Mr. Sindhwani, however, did not dispute the
Civil Suit no. 247/2004 Page 27 of 36
legal position that the Court can suo moto also invoke
the provisions RFA 179/2008 Page 24 of 40 of Order
1 Rule 10 CPC if it is felt that a necessary party
without whom there can be no effective adjudication
of the controversy between the parties has not been
impleaded and also that this power can be invoked
even by the appellate Court. While not disputing this
position the learned counsel, however, kept on
maintaining that the defendant's husband was not at
all a necessary party.