Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.21 seconds)Article 65 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Ram Niranjan Das And Anr. vs Loknath Mandal And Ors. on 20 December, 1968
32. As as far, judgments Currimbhoy & Co. Ltd (Supra), Ram
Niranjan Das & Anr (Supra), Ajmer Singh (Supra), Mahavir
Prashad (Supra) relied upon by counsel for plaintiff with respect to
maintainability of the suit by a co-owner or co-sharer against
unauthorized occupant are concerned, the ratio of these judgments
is not at all disputed, however, the defendant in the present suit
cannot said to be unauthorized occupant of the suit property in view
of the discussion done above and, therefore, these judgments
cannot be said to be applicable to the case in hand. Since the
property already stood transferred to the defendant nos. 1 to 6 in
view of irrevocable GPA in the year 1989 itself when the mother of
the plaintiffs i.e. one of the joint owner was alive, therefore,
Sunita Sinha & Anr Vs. M/s Leela Builders Pvt Ltd & Ors Page 27 of 34
plaintiffs had no right title or interest in the suit property. The
aforesaid proposition is applicable only when all the co-shares are at
the same footing, however, in the present case defendant no. 9 &
10 being the joint sellers are not claiming any right in the property
whereas plaintiffs being the LRs of one of the joint seller are
claiming right in the property stating that entire consideration
amount was never paid. Hence, issue no. 4, 8, 9 & 10 are decided
against the plaintiffs and in favour of the defendants.
Mahavir Prashad vs Sukhdev Mongia And Anr. on 25 August, 1989
32. As as far, judgments Currimbhoy & Co. Ltd (Supra), Ram
Niranjan Das & Anr (Supra), Ajmer Singh (Supra), Mahavir
Prashad (Supra) relied upon by counsel for plaintiff with respect to
maintainability of the suit by a co-owner or co-sharer against
unauthorized occupant are concerned, the ratio of these judgments
is not at all disputed, however, the defendant in the present suit
cannot said to be unauthorized occupant of the suit property in view
of the discussion done above and, therefore, these judgments
cannot be said to be applicable to the case in hand. Since the
property already stood transferred to the defendant nos. 1 to 6 in
view of irrevocable GPA in the year 1989 itself when the mother of
the plaintiffs i.e. one of the joint owner was alive, therefore,
Sunita Sinha & Anr Vs. M/s Leela Builders Pvt Ltd & Ors Page 27 of 34
plaintiffs had no right title or interest in the suit property. The
aforesaid proposition is applicable only when all the co-shares are at
the same footing, however, in the present case defendant no. 9 &
10 being the joint sellers are not claiming any right in the property
whereas plaintiffs being the LRs of one of the joint seller are
claiming right in the property stating that entire consideration
amount was never paid. Hence, issue no. 4, 8, 9 & 10 are decided
against the plaintiffs and in favour of the defendants.
Suraj Lamp & Industries (P) Ld.Tr.Dir vs State Of Haryana & Anr on 11 October, 2011
Had there been any substance in the version
of the plaintiffs, the original owners would have definitely joined the
plaintiffs in this suit and would not have left the alleged unpaid
money of Rs. 62,40,000/- so easily. The suit has been filed after
nine years of death of the Nirmal Krishnan. Merely getting the
property mutated in their favour by the husband of Nirmal Krishnan
and defendant no. 9 & 10 has no bearing on this case and does
not give any strength to the case of the plaintiffs. As far as the
argument of Ld Sr. Counsel for plaintiffs that the GPA does not
confer any right, title or interest in the suit property in favour of
defendants in view of judgment Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt Ltd
(Supra) is concerned, it is stated that the suit has not been filed by
the defendant rather it is filed by plaintiff. The defendants have not
filed any counter claim seeking declaration with respect to
ownership in respect of the suit property. However, the facts
remains that an irrevocable GPA had been executed by joint
Sunita Sinha & Anr Vs. M/s Leela Builders Pvt Ltd & Ors Page 24 of 34
owners in favour of defendant no. 7 giving all rights to him in
respect of the suit property which are vested with an owner. The
GPA is still in existence and had never been revoked.
Article 58 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Delhi Apartment Ownership Act, 1986
Section 62 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
The Companies Act, 1956
Ashok Kumar vs Mohd. Rustam & Anr on 22 January, 2016
20. Ld Sr. Counsel for plaintiffs has argued that property was
sold for total consideration of Rs. 80,70,000/- whereas amount of
Rs. 62,40,000/- was not paid by defendants, consequently
resulting in cancellation of agreement to sell and forfeiture of
advance of Rs. 10,40,000/-. With respect to power of attorney, Ld
Sr. Counsel for plaintiff has argued that joint owners had executed
a general power of attorney in the name of the representatives of
defendants no. 1 to 6 to facilitate the handing over of the
possession of the suit property to them for taking appropriate
action to get back the possession of the premises from the tenants
and same was got vacated, however, it was never handed over
back to the owners and the second floor which was in possession
of the joint owners was also used unauthorizedly by the defendant
Sunita Sinha & Anr Vs. M/s Leela Builders Pvt Ltd & Ors Page 12 of 34
nos. 1 to 8 and they are liable to pay mesne profits @ Rs.
1,00,000/- per month alongwith interest @ 24 % per annum. It is
further argued that since full consideration was not paid, the
defendants are not entitled to retain the possession of the property.
It is stated that father of the plaintiff, defendant no. 9 & 10 had got
the property mutated in their name in the year 1992 and on
23.11.1993 a letter was written by joint owners to defendant no. 1
to 8 to return back to the possession of the suit property, however,
same was not returned and, therefore, suit was filed by plaintiffs in
the year 1999 within the period of limitation. Ld Sr. Counsel for
plaintiffs has relied upon judgment i.e. Ashok Kumar Vs. Rustam
& Ors 227 (2016) DLT 385 on the point that in a suit for
possession based upon title, the relief of declaration of title is
implicit in it and the limitation for filing such suit will be 12 years in
terms of Article 65 of the Limitation Act.