//
archives

Second Appeal

This tag is associated with 2 posts

adverse possession can be used as a shield/defence but not as a weapon = Even if the plaintiff is found to be in adverse possession, it cannot seek a declaration to the effect that such adverse possession has matured into ownership. Only if proceedings filed against the appellant and appellant is arrayed as defendant that it can use this adverse possession as a shield/defence.- As the appellant is in possession of the suit property since 13.4.1952 and has been granted the decree of injunction, it obviously means that the possession of the appellant cannot be disturbed except by due process of law. We make it clear that though the suit of the appellant seeking relief of declaration has been dismissed, in case respondents file suit for possession and/or ejectment of the appellant, it would be open to the appellant to plead in defence that the appellant had become the owner of property by adverse possession. Needless to mention at this stage, the appellant shall also be at liberty to plead that findings of issue No.1 to the effect that the appellant is in possession of adverse possession since 13.4.1952 operates as res- judicata. Subject to this clarification, the appeal is dismissed.

  published in   http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgst.aspx?filename=40774  NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8244/2013 (arising out of S.L.P.(Civil) No. 23728 of 2012) Gurudwara Sahib …Appellant   Vs. Gram Panchayat Village Sirthala & Anr. …Respondents   J U D G M E N T   A.K.SIKRI,J. 1. Leave granted. 2. The appellant herein … Continue reading

whether the landlord could still claim bonafide need for himself as well as his dependents. = in Sheshambal v. Chelur Corporation (2010) 3 SCC 470 in which my learned and esteemed brother Thakur J. had perspicuously yet concisely considered the plethora of precedents pertaining to the legal consequences of the demise of the landlord whose bonafide need was the substance of the eviction action, during the pendency of an appeal. After analysing several previous decisions, it has been held that events which transpired subsequent to filing of the eviction petition could and must be kept in perspective if they would have the effect of dislodging the very plinth or substratum of the claim. In Sheshambal, the bonafide need that had been pleaded pertained only to the landlord and his wife. It will be relevant to record that the claim had been concurrently rejected by the courts below, before whom the landlord-husband had passed away. The widow, whose bonafide need had also been set up, unfortunately, also passed away during the pendency of the appeal in this Court. In those circumstances, it was held that the bonafide need, even assuming that it existed at the time of filing of the eviction action, had thereafter lapsed altogether on the death of the petitioning protagonists. = 9. In these circumstances, mindful of the uncertainty of which manner we may decide, the parties through their counsel have arrived at a settlement before us. It has been agreed that the rent shall stand increased to Rs.1500/- per month and that the Respondent-tenant shall be permitted to continue to occupy the tenanted premises for a further period of three years. The Appeal is accordingly allowed. The judgment of the High Court is set aside. However, the Respondent- tenant shall hand over peaceful and vacant possession to the landlord or his legal heirs in the event of his demise on or before 31st August 2016 provided the Respondent pays all the arrears of rent till date (if any); and with effect from September 2013 pays a sum of Rs.1500/- per month towards damages for use and occupation. The usual undertaking to abide by these terms must be filed within four weeks from today failing which he shall be liable to be evicted/ejected forthwith.

 published in     http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgst.aspx?filename=40697       REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7163 OF 2013 [Arising out of S.L.P.(C)No.21936 of 2011]   Baldev Krishan …..Appellant Versus Satya Narain …..Respondent     J U D G M E N T   VIKRAMAJIT SEN, J. 1. Leave granted. We have … Continue reading

Blog Stats

  • 2,881,036 hits

ADVOCATE MMMOHAN

archieves

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,905 other followers

Follow advocatemmmohan on WordPress.com