The respondent no.1-plaintiff filed a suit with the
following prayer:
a) for a declaration that the plaintiff is a
lawful occupier as caretaker/servant of the sole
owner of the A schedule property and occupier and
adverse possessor of the B Schedule property.
After the notice was served. The application under
Order VII Rule 11, CPC came to be filed at the behest of
the present appellant-defendant with an objection that the
suit proceedings at the instance of the respondent no.1-
plaintiff who had pleaded himself to be a
caretaker/servant, acquires no interest in the subject
property irrespective of his long possession, is not
maintainable under the law and as regards the plea of
adverse possession is concerned, it lacks material
particulars.
The Trial Judge dismissed the application on the
premise that these are the subject matter of disputes which
can be examined only after the written statement being
filed at the behest of the present appellant-defendant and
is not within the scope of Order VII Rule 11, CPC and order
of Trial Judge came to be confirmed by the High Court by
the impugned order assailed in the present proceedings.
After we heard counsel for the parties and taking into
consideration the material on record, in our considered
view, the Trail Court has committed a manifest error in
appreciating the pleadings on record from the plaint filed
at the instance of respondent no.1-plaintiff who as a
caretaker/servant can never acquire interest in the
property irrespective of his long possession and the
caretaker/servant has to give possession forthwith on
demand and so far as the plea of adverse possession is
concerned as it lacks material particulars and the plaint
does not discloses the cause of action for institution of
the suit.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5779 OF 2021
HIMALAYA VINTRADE PVT. LTD. Vs MD. ZAHID & ANR.
Dated: SEPTEMBER 16, 2021
Leave granted.
The appellant-defendant has approached to this Court
assailing the order passed by Ld.Trial Judge and confirmed
by the High Court on the application filed at his instance
under Order VII Rule 11, Civil Procedure Code, 1908.
The facts on record are not in dispute. The appellantdefendant
initially entered into an agreement to sell of
the subject property in question on 23.02.2018 and after a
formal deed of conveyance finally a sale deed was executed
on 30.09.2019 and his right of ownership over the subject
property in question became absolute.
The respondent no.1-plaintiff filed a suit with the
following prayer:
a) for a declaration that the plaintiff is a
lawful occupier as caretaker/servant of the sole
owner of the A schedule property and occupier and
adverse possessor of the B Schedule property.
b) for the permanent injunction restraining
defendant to disturb or evict the peaceful
possession of the plaintiff otherwise then the
due course of law.
Schedule A of property
All that an area of land admeasuring 16 kh. 3 ch.
4 sq.ft. be the same and a little more or less
with three storied residential building have each
floor are 5000 Sq.ft. more or less and some
vacant possession lying and situated at premises
no.217, Lower Circular Road and now known as 217
A.J.C.Bose Road, Kolkata-700017 P.S.Beniapukur,
Dist-South 24 pargans
Schedule B property
All that three rooms and one godown along with
some vacant land at premises no.217, Lower
Circular Road and now known as 217 A.J.C.Bose
Road, Kolkata-700017 P.S.Beniapukur.
It was a specific case of the respondent no.1-
plaintiff that he was in possession of the subject property
as a caretaker/servant. Para nos.2, 4 and 6 of the plaint
are reproduced hereunder:
2. That the plaintiff is a servant/caretaker of
the “A” schedule property appointed by the Mirza
Habibullah Khaleeli and the said sole owners of
the said property allow the plaintiff for used
and residing all that three rooms and one godown
along with some vacant land which is more fully
and particularly described in the “B” schedule
below lying and situated at premises no.217,
Lower Circular Road and now known as 217
A.J.C.Bose Road, Kolkata-700017 P.S.Beniapukur is
the subject matter of the suit within the
jurisdiction of this ld.Court.
4. That on all a sudden the defendants and their
men and agents with other antisocial elements
trying to take or enter into the plaintiff’s
rooms i.e. B schedule Property with an ulterior
motive they trying to dispossess the plaintiff
from his lawful occupation as servant/caretaker
with a view to grab the occupation/residence but
the defendant is not success to fulfill their ill
desired, for the intervention of the local people
and their strong support the defendants could not
succeed there to oust and dispossess the
plaintiff.
6. That the right title interested possession of
the plaintiff in the suit property as well as
lawful right of servant and caretaker and
claiming as adverse possessor of the B schedule
property even thus been clouded for unlawful act
of the defendants so the plaintiff is compelled
instituted the instant suit against the defendant
for declaration that the defendant be not ousted
from the B schedule property i.e. suit property
other than due process of law and for permanent
injunction against the defendant not to disturb
the peaceful possession of the suit property and
also not disturb or the egress and ingress of the
suit property.
After the notice was served. The application under
Order VII Rule 11, CPC came to be filed at the behest of
the present appellant-defendant with an objection that the
suit proceedings at the instance of the respondent no.1-
plaintiff who had pleaded himself to be a
caretaker/servant, acquires no interest in the subject
property irrespective of his long possession, is not
maintainable under the law and as regards the plea of
adverse possession is concerned, it lacks material
particulars.
The Trial Judge dismissed the application on the
premise that these are the subject matter of disputes which
can be examined only after the written statement being
filed at the behest of the present appellant-defendant and
is not within the scope of Order VII Rule 11, CPC and order
of Trial Judge came to be confirmed by the High Court by
the impugned order assailed in the present proceedings.
After we heard counsel for the parties and taking into
consideration the material on record, in our considered
view, the Trail Court has committed a manifest error in
appreciating the pleadings on record from the plaint filed
at the instance of respondent no.1-plaintiff who as a
caretaker/servant can never acquire interest in the
property irrespective of his long possession and the
caretaker/servant has to give possession forthwith on
demand and so far as the plea of adverse possession is
concerned as it lacks material particulars and the plaint
does not discloses the cause of action for institution of
the suit.
In our considered view, the order of the Ld. Trial
Judge which has been confirmed by the High Court impugned
in the instant proceeding is not sustainable on the first
principles of law.
Consequently, the appeal succeeds and is allowed. The
order of the High Court is, hereby, quashed and set aside.
The plaint no.T.S.150/2019, on the file of Ld.2nd Civil
Judge(Jr.Div) at Sealdah is, accordingly, rejected.
Since we have rejected the plaint in reference to the
proceeding initiated, we direct the respondent no.1-
plaintiff to handover, vacant and peaceful possession of
the subject property in question free from all encumbrances
within three months.
If the respondent no.1-plaintiff fails to handover
possession, the appellant-defendant will be at liberty to
take the recourse as known to the law.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed
of.
............... J.
(AJAY RASTOGI)
............... J.
(ABHAY S OKA)
NEW DELHI
SEPTEMBER 16, 2021
Print Page
No comments:
Post a Comment