Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 60 (0.80 seconds)
Documents citing Subhash Chandra vs Mohammad Sharit And Ors on 19 December, 1989

Om Prakash Chourasiya vs Smt. Sarita Saxena on 25 April, 2022

In Subhash Chandra Vs. Mohammad Sharif and others, (1990) 1 SCC 252 it has been held that the doctrine of estopple ordinarily applies where the tenant has been let into possession by the plaintiff. Where the landlord has not himself inducted the tenant in the disputed property and his rights are founded on a derivative title, for example as an assignee, donee, vendee, heir, etc. the position is little different. A tenant already in possession can challenge the plaintiff's claim of derivative title showing that the real owner is somebody else, but this is subject to the rule enunciated by Section 116 of the Evidence Act, which does not permit the tenant, during the continuance of the tenancy, to deny that his landlord had at the beginning of the tenancy a title to the property. The rule is not confined in its application to cases where the original landlord brings an action for eviction. A transferee from such a landlord also can claim the benefit, but that will be limited to the question of the title of the original landlord at the when the tenant was let in. So far claim of having derived a good title from the original landlord is concerned, the same does not come under the protection of the doctrine of estoppel, and is vulnerable to a challenge. The tenant is entitled to show that the plaintiff has not as a matter of fact secured a transfer from the Civil Revision No.204 of 2021 10 original landlord or that the alleged transfer is ineffective for some other valid reason, which renders the transfer to be non existent in the eye of law. Thus, the ratio laid down in the case law is not applicable in the instant case the applicant himself admitted that the respondent is the landlord so he has paid the rent to her by cheque.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 2 - A Palo - Full Document

Hanuman Prasad Mishra vs Addl. Dist. Judge Court No. 4 Lucknow & ... on 29 March, 2019

"9. We may next consider the decision in Devi Dass relied on by the respondents. In Devi Dass the case was remanded, as the Appellate Authority and the High Court had not considered at all the contention of the tenant that the sale was sham. But in this case, the trial Court and the appellate court have considered the evidence on the question whether the transaction was sham and recorded a finding thereon. Further, the decision in Devi Dass was rendered on facts, where apparently the tenant had not accepted the purchaser as his landlord by attornment. In this case the respondent tenants attorned to the new landlord (the appellant) and were paying the rents to him. It is now well settled that where on being informed of the sale of the premises by the vendor/purchaser, the tenant acknowledges the purchaser as his landlord, and pays the rents to him, he cannot thereafter be heard to say that the sale in favour of his landlord is sham. The only exception to this principle is, where the derivative title of the purchaser landlord is challenged by the tenant by pleading and proving that when he attorned, he was labouring under a mistake or ignorance as to material facts affecting title of the new landlord. (See Tej Bhan Madan v. II ADJ and Subhash Chandra vs. Mohd. Sharif). We may refer to the classic statement from Spencer Bower and Turner on Estoppel by Representation (3rd Edn.) on this issue:
Allahabad High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - I Ali - Full Document

G.M. Kandasamy And Two Ors. vs Palaniammal (Deceased) And Ors. on 13 February, 2004

19. Learned counsel for the appellants further relied on the decision in Subhash Chandra v. Mohammad Sharif, , in support of his submission that under the doctrine of estoppel enunciated under Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, does not apply even if the tenant denies the title of the landlord, who derived title subsequent to the induction of the tenancy by way of assignment, gift, sale or inheritance, etc. The said decision is not the answer to the present issue in view of the specific provisions under the Act 1955 with reference to the denial of protection to the tenant who denies the title of the landlords wilfully. The principle laid down in the above said decision cannot be relied on to deny the right of the landlord to get possession by filing a suit on the ground that the tenant has wilfully denied title. In the said decision, the Apex Court had no occasion to consider similar provision to Section 3(2) of the Act 1955.
Madras High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sunil Gupta vs Roots Corporation Limited on 10 January, 2019

16.6 The judgments cited by the respondent in the matter of Shambhunath Mitra and Ors. v. Khaitan Consultant and Ors.; Subhash Chandra v. Mohammad Sharif and Ors. and Mohd Ilyas and Anr. v. Mohd. Adil and Ors. in support of the submission that the estoppel placed on the tenant to challenge the title of the landlord by virtue of Section 116 of the Evidence Act does not apply to a subsequent landlord is flawed. A bare perusal of the judgment in the case of Shambhunath Mitra would show that the proposition formulated on behalf of the respondent would not apply where the tenant has attorned to the subsequent landlord.
Delhi High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - R Shakdher - Full Document

Abdul Aziz vs Salahuddin on 17 November, 2021

17. The Ld. Counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India "Subhash Chandra Vs. Mohd. Sharif" and contended that doctrine of estoppel under Section 116 of Evidence Act applies in such cases and tenant cannot deny the title of the landlord. As already discussed that respondent denies the execution of rent receipts and moreover, there is doubt regarding signature of the respondent on the rent receipts, so it cannot be said that doctrine of estoppel applies to such cases. Thus, the above stated decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India does not apply to the Eviction Petition No. 55/2019 Abdul Aziz & Ors. Vs. Salahuddin Page 10 of 11 //11// facts and circumstances of the present case.
Delhi District Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Gandabhai Ranchhodji Gandhi vs Noshir Ka Vasji Sabowala And Ors. on 5 February, 1993

18. Similarly in Subash Chandra v. Mohammad Sharif, reported in AIR 1990 SC 636, derivative title of the plaintiff was neither defective nor challenged. It was, therefore, held that the tenant could not deny the title of the plaintiff by challenging the title of his vendor. It was also made clear that the application of rule emboided in Section 116 of the Evidence Act would not be confined in its application to cases where original landlord brings action for eviction. Section 116 is not exhaustive of the law of estoppel. Therefore, a transferee from such a landlord also can claim the benefit, but that will be limited to the question of title of the original landlord at the time when the tenant was let in. The tenant is entitled to show that the plaintiff has not as a matter of fact secured a transfer from the original landlord or that the alleged transfer is ineffective for some other valid reason, which renders the transfer to be non-existent in the eye of law. Tenant in such a case can attack the derivative title of the transferee-plaintiff but not on the ground that the transferor-landlord who had initially inducted him in possession did not have the right to dispose of the property. Moreover, since the impediment in the way of a tenant to challenge the right of the landlord is confined to the stage when the tenancy commenced, he is not forbidden to plead that subsequently the landlord lost his right. These exceptions, however, do not relieve the tenant of his duty to respect the title of the original landlord at the time of the beginning of the tenancy.
Gujarat High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 6 - C K Thakker - Full Document

Sardar Harbans Singh vs Shailesh Chand Gupta on 19 August, 2000

This case has been followed in several cases including the case of Raghvendra Singh and others Vs. Marhu Basant and another, reported in 1971 MPLJ 4 by the Division Bench of this Court and the Supreme Court in the case of Subhash Chandra Vs. Mohammad Sharif and others, reported in 1990 JLJ 209. In the opinion of this Court, Section 12 (1) (c) of the Act will not be attracted to the aforesaid defence. The tenant in effect is saying that the derivative title holder is not his true landlord by operation of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act. In fact, Section 109(ibid) did not apply. For the aforesaid reason, he is not willing to attorn to or acknowledge the title of new landlord or pay rent to him. This may be a basic defence in a case of landlord and tenant. The tenant is entitled to say that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant. To such a case, Section 12 (1) (c) of the Act would not apply provided in fact there is no relationship of landlord and tenant and there be bonafide dispute or doubt that the new claimant had not acquired the title from the original landlord. If there be a doubt, then Section 12 (1) (c) of the Act would not be attracted even if the tenant in order to protect his interest had made a claim which in retrospect appears to be made with an ulterior motive of delaying the trial. If there be disputed facts for which full trial is necessary, the Court cannot throw out the defence on the ground that prima fade it appears to be faise or frivolous. This Court is firmly of the view that any other view of the matter may deprive the tenant of his valuable defence.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 Next