Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.16 seconds)
Suresh Kumar & Anr vs Saroj Atal on 1 March, 2012 cites

Suraj Lamp & Industries (P) Ld.Tr.Dir vs State Of Haryana & Anr on 11 October, 2011

8. In my opinion, the issue in the present case is not ownership of the suit property as is known in law of the respondent/plaintiff, but the issue as to entitlement to recover possession of the suit property, even assuming strict ownership may not rest with the respondent/plaintiff. Of course, the judgment in the case of Suraj Lamp (Supra) squarely applies against the RFA No.482/2011 Page 6 of 9 respondent/plaintiff in the facts of the present case because the documents in question executed in favour of the respondent/plaintiff are dated 25.9.2001 and the amended provision of Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 came into force just one day before i.e. on 24.9.2001, however, it would at best mean that ownership rights as is normally known would not rest with the respondent/plaintiff, however, possessionary rights of the suit property cannot be disputed to be that of the respondent/plaintiff. These possessory rights were created in the year 2001 itself by means of the documents executed in favour of the respondent/plaintiff. In a suit for possession a plaintiff has to show better title i.e. entitlement than that of the defendant and in the present case, besides the fact that respondent/plaintiff has shown a better entitlement to possession by virtue of the documents dated 25.9.2001 executed in her favour, the appellants/defendants themselves do not have any equities in their favour inasmuch as qua both the flats purchased by them rights have been exercised. Thus, even if the respondent/plaintiff fails to prove the ownership rights stricto sensu to the extent of entitlement of possession, the appellants/defendants cannot defend the suit for possession once no title or interest in the suit property is claimed by them. The respondent/plaintiff, therefore, need not strictly prove, that a license deed ought to have been executed before the suit for RFA No.482/2011 Page 7 of 9 possession could be filed by respondent/plaintiff. A license is merely a right to enter and exit a property and for which there is no deed which is required to be drawn up. The stand thus of the appellants/defendants of alleged collusion between the respondent/plaintiff and Smt. Kamlesh Gautam-sister of the respondent/plaintiff, does not take the case of the appellants any further because the registered documents executed in favour of the respondent/plaintiff are of the year 2001 and admittedly appellants/defendants admit to have got possession of the suit property in 2008. I also take on record the statement of the counsel for the respondent/plaintiff that the relations of respondent/plaintiff with her sister have gone bad on account of the dishonesty of her sister-Kamlesh Gautam and her husband-Raj Kumar Gautam.
Supreme Court of India Cites 25 - Cited by 1760 - R V Raveendran - Full Document
1