Whether the State can claim a right in a immovable property in the basis of gift deed if its name is not mutated in revenue record since long?

 The title of the land in suit had passed on to the State

after the donation and transfer of possession and after

construction, the hospital continued for more than

four decades before filing of the suit. The plaintiff, son

of the donor, also waited for 20 years despite admitted

knowledge of the hospital running over the land in

suit and did not take any action. {Para 26}

27. Article 65 under the Schedule to the Limitation Act

provides limitation of 12 years for filing a suit for

possession based on title. In the present case, merely

because the name of the plaintiff continued in the

revenue records (Jama Bandis), it would not confer

any title upon him. Revenue records (Jama Bandis)

are only entries for the purpose of realising tax by the

Municipal Corporations or land revenue by Gram

Sabhas. The plaintiff having failed to claim relief of

declaration, the suit itself would not be maintainable.

Further, for a suit for declaration, period of limitation

would be three years under Article 58 of the Schedule

to the Limitation Act, which in the present case was

long lost.

28. There is nothing on record available from the cross-examination of defendants 1 and 2 that the documents which they proved were either incorrect, doubtful or suspicious. The documents exhibited by the defendants could not be ignored as they were

public documents, copies of which were filed and duly

proved. Even if the deed was not placed on record but

due explanation was given, the facts of the case and

the evidence on record clearly established the case of

the defendant-appellant that the land in suit had been

donated by Sri Inder Singh, father of the plaintiff way

back in 1958. The lethargy/carelessness on the part

of the State in not getting the revenue records

corrected on the basis of the gift deed would not take

away the rights conferred on the State under the gift

deed.

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO…………OF 2024

Arising out of SLP (Civil) No.................of 2024

(@ Diary No.17885 of 2020)

THE STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. Vs BHAGWANTPAL SINGH ALIAS BHAGWANT SINGH (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS.

Author: VIKRAM NATH, J.

Citation: 2024 INSC 518.

Dated: JULY 10, 2024.

Print Page

Whether the title over suit property will be transferred if mother of minor who is owner of suit property has put signature on sale deed in her individual capacity?

  Once such evidence was adduced in terms of Section 68 of the Evidence Act, 1872, and the mandatory requirements prescribed Under Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, were duly satisfied, the Will stood proved in the eye of law (See H. Venkatachala Iyengar v. B.N. Thimmajamma MANU/SC/0115/1958 : 1958:INSC:98 : AIR 1959 SC 443) and the same ought not to have been brushed aside lightly. As the Will was duly proved to be genuine, the participation of the first Defendant in the execution of the Sale Deed dated 18.01.1979 thereafter paled into insignificance. The owner of the property under the Will was Meghraj, the second Defendant, and he was neither a party to the said sale deed nor did his mother affix her signature therein in the capacity of being his guardian.

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 9035 of 2013.

Decided On: 29.02.2024

Savitri Bai and Ors. Vs. Savitri Bai

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Sanjay Karol and P.V. Sanjay Kumar, JJ.

Author: P.V. Sanjay Kumar, J.

Citation:  MANU/SC/0147/2024.

Print Page

Bombay HC: Electricity Connection On Particular Address Not Proof Of Ownership, Legality Of Construction

 We accept both these as being sufficient. It is our understanding that these statements disclaimers or clarifications are not newly introduced restrictions or conditions. They only make explicit that which was already a part of the law on the subject for the mere application for an electricity connection made to a distribution licensee or the issuance of a bill for power consumption by the distribution licensee has nothing at all to do with planning permissions for the construction and erection of a structure. An electricity connection application and a bill cannot be used to prove ownership because that is not even the demand of the distribution licensee. All that the licensee requires to know is the address to which power is to be supplied and in whose name it is to be billed. It is impossible to expect a distribution licensee to act beyond the remit of the statute to assess questions of title to the property in question let alone assess questions of whether the structure or structures or apartments or units do or do not have the requisite planning permissions. Notably, even under the planning statute, namely the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (“MRTP Act”), no distribution licensee is a planning authority for these purposes. It is not even a local authority for the purposes of the MRTP Act.{Para 6}

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

SUO MOTU WRIT PETITION NO. 2 OF 2023

High Court On Its Own Motion Vs State of Maharashtra 

CORAM G.S. Patel & Kamal Khata, JJ.

DATED: 30th November 2023

Print Page

Whether a person can be treated as owner of a house if he resides in said house?

 It may also be pertinent to mention here that on perusal of the

Award of the arbitrator and the order of the appellate authority,

it is evident that the arbitrator had not recorded any finding that

Krishna Pal Singh had given a false affidavit or that he owned a

house or a plot in the area of operation of the society. The only

finding recorded by the arbitrator is that at the time of allotment

he had given his address to be F150 Kamla Nagar, Agra where

even now his successors are residing. However, such finding

falls short of saying that the address at which he was living was

a house which belonged to him or his family members as defined

under the bye-laws or that his successors are the owners of the

said house in their own capacity. Mere living in a particular

house by itself would not mean that the said house is under

ownership of the person living therein in his individual capacity

or even that it is within the area of operation of the society.

{Para 16}

NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 5380-5382 OF 2015

PURUSHOTTAM BAGH SAHKARI AWAS SAMITI LTD Vs

SRI SHOBHAN PAL SINGH AND ANR. ETC. 

Author: PANKAJ MITHAL, J.

Dated: SEPTEMBER 04, 2023.

Citation:  2023INSC789.

Print Page

Whether any person other owner of immovable property can give valid notice U/S 127 of MRTP Act?

 c] In the case of Ramchandra Shankar Joshi and others v. State of Maharashtra and others reported in MANU/MH/2180/2015 : 2016 (1) Mh LJ 765 : 2015 (6) AIR Bom R 364 in paragraph Nos. 7 & 8 the Division Bench of this Court has observed thus:

"7. It is a settled position of law that notice contemplated under Section 127 of the Act of 1966 is to be given by the owner or the person having interest in the land which is reserved, allotted or designated for the particular purpose in the development plan. The object of the notice under Section 127 is to inform the Authority mentioned therein to acquire the land which is designated, reserved or allotted in the final development plan. It is further settled position in law that form of notice under Section 127 is not prescribed. Therefore such notice shall meet sufficient requirement in describing the land in clear terms and require the planning authority or development authority or the appropriate authority, as the case may be, to acquire or compulsorily purchase the land so reserved, allotted or designated in the development plan. 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (AURANGABAD BENCH)

Writ Petition No. 5312 of 2016

Decided On: 20.03.2018

Mariyam Begum Abdul Jalil Khan and Ors.  Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

S.V. Gangapurwala and S.M. Gavhane, JJ.

Author: S.M. Gavhane, J.

Citation: MANU/MH/1536/2018.

Read full Judgment here: Click here

Print Page

Whether purchase notice U/S 127 of MRTP Act is invalid if documents of ownership are not annexed to said notice?

Learned Advocate appearing for respondent No. 4 submits that the petitioners are not owners of the subject properties. They have not annexed the documents of title to the subject properties with the purchase notice under Section 127 of the MRTP Act. Learned Advocate further submits that as per section 127 of the MRTP Act the land owners have to supply copies of documents showing their title or interest in the land with notice. Since the petitioners did not annex documents of their ownership to the subject properties with notice under Section 127 of the MRTP Act there is no compliance of the said provision and therefore the purchase notice given by the petitioners is invalid and therefore, as the petitioners have no locus to file the writ petition they are not entitled to relief of declarations as claimed in the petition to declare that the subject properties are deemed to be de-reserved since no steps have been taken by the respondents to acquire the said properties within one year of service of the said notice. {Para 20}

27. In the first place we shall deal with the objection raised by the contesting respondents that as along with purchase notice the petitioners did not annex the documents of their ownership/title to the subject properties which is mandatory requirement of purchase notice as per Section 127 of the MRTP Act the said notice is invalid and hence the petitioners are not entitled to de-reservation of the subject properties as claimed by them. On perusal of purchase notice (Exh. F) it does not show that alongwith said notice the petitioners had enclosed the documents of their title to the subject properties. Moreover, it is not their case in the petition that along with purchase notice which was sent by them on 29.09.2014 by RPAD they had annexed the documents of their ownership to the subject properties.

32. For the reasons discussed above we hold that the petitioners have failed to prove that the purchase notice (Exh. F) was served on the respondents with the documents of title by hand. Thus, as the purchase notice was not served on the respondents authorities with the documents of title to the subject properties and that ownership of petitioners is disputed by respondent the said notice is invalid. Therefore, there is substance in the arguments advanced by the learned Advocate appearing for respondent No. 4 relying upon the ratio laid down in the case of Jaika Vanijya Ltd. Nagpur and another (MANU/MH/0706/2013 : 2013 (3) AIR Bom R 1432) (supra) and Perfect Machine Tools Co. Ltd., (MANU/MH/0202/2008 : 2008 (2) AIR Bom R 642) (supra) that the purchase notice is invalid as the documents of title were not attached to it.

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (AURANGABAD BENCH)

Writ Petition No. 5312 of 2016

Decided On: 20.03.2018

Mariyam Begum Abdul Jalil Khan and Ors.  Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

S.V. Gangapurwala and S.M. Gavhane, JJ.

Author: S.M. Gavhane, J.

Citation: MANU/MH/1536/2018.

Print Page

Can the person claiming to be the immovable property's owner take the defence of the title by adverse possession?

The mere fact that the defendants have come forward with a plea of adverse possession, means that they admit the plaintiff to be the true owner. For a plea of ownership on the basis of adverse possession, the first and the foremost condition is, that the property must belong to someone else other than the person pleading his title on the basis of adverse possession, In the instant case the defendants have put forward defences which are irreconcilable’ and mutually destructive and inconsistent with one another.”

18. It is pertinent to note that in the present case, the defendant no. 1 has claimed rights in the suit property on the basis of being an owner. Reference may also be made to paragraph 3 at page no. 7 of the written statement, which is set out below:

“The entire consideration amount as well as stamp duty was paid by Smt. Krishna Gupta, Sapan Gupta wife and son of defendant no. 1 and further confirmed that since the Sale Deed or transfer documents cannot be executed and registered for the time being and as and when, this would be permissible, he would transfer the same in favour of Shri. Vijay Gupta and has also stated that the possession has been handed over to Shri. Vijay Gupta as a owner who is fully authorized to use it in any manner whatsoever and there will be no right to Late Ashok Kumar or his legal heirs in future. It is submitted that the Transfer Deed is incapable of execution even today and defendant reserve his right to file appropriate legal proceedings for transfer as and when the same would be permissible.”

19. In light of the dicta in Rama Kanta Jain (supra), the plea of adverse possession in the present case would not be available to the defendant no. 1, as he has claimed himself to be the owner in possession of the suit property.

 In the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi

(Before Amit Bansal, J.)

Anu Gupta Vs Vijay Gupta and Others 

CS(OS) 250/2020 and I.A. 11222/2021 (O-XXXIX R-2A of CPC)

Decided on August 8, 2022, 

Citation: 2022 SCC OnLine Del 2391

Print Page

Whether Suit for declaration based on adverse possession having matured into ownership is Maintainable?

 The High Court on examination of judgment of this Court had opined that the appellant as plaintiff cannot seek a declaration based on adverse possession having matured into ownership on the premise that the plea of adverse possession was only a plea of defence and not of establishing rights as a plaintiff though injunction suit would be maintainable. The moot point is that the legal position in this behalf now stands enunciated to the contrary in terms of the judgment of this Court in Ravinder Kaur Grewal & Ors. v. Manjit Kaur & Ors.- 2019 (8) SCC 729.

The aforesaid being the position, the application filed by respondent No.1 under Order VII Rule 11, CPC predicated on a contrary legal view could not have been sustained and thus, the order of the High Court is set aside and the application of respondent No.1 stands rejected with the direction to the trial Court to try the suit on merits as expeditiously as possible.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION 

 CIVIL APPEAL NOS.1701-1702/2022 

DARSHAN KAUR BHATIA Vs RAMESH GANDHI & ANR.

Coram: SANJAY KISHAN KAUL; M.M. SUNDRESH, JJ. 

Dated: FEBRUARY 28, 2022

Print Page

Whether Presiding Deity or Pujari Is Owner Of Land Attached To Temple?

      The said judgment is clearly erroneous as the presiding deity of the temple is the owner of the land attached to the temple. The Pujari is only to perform puja and to maintain the properties of the deity. In fact, the Constitution Bench in a judgment reported as M. Siddiq (Dead) Through Legal Representatives v. Mahant Suresh Das and Others, (2020) 1 SCC 1 held as under:

“511. …….. A pujari is merely a servant or appointee of a shebait and gains no independent right as a shebait despite having conducted ceremonies over a period of time. All the evidence relied upon to support the claim of late Baba Abhiram Das is restricted to his having performed puja at the disputed premises and does not confer any shebaiti rights.”

27. In the ownership column, the name of the deity alone is required to be mentioned, as the deity being a juristic person is the owner of the land. The occupation of the land is also by the deity which is carried out by the servant or the managers on behalf of the deity. Therefore, the name of the manager or that of the priest is not required to be mentioned in the column of occupier as well. In Ghanshyamdas II, it was held that if the name of the Pujari is recorded in the column No. 12 i.e. column of remarks, it will not affect the rights of the Pujari so long as he is performing his functions properly and cultivating the land or getting the land cultivated through servants. Therefore, the name of the Pujari cannot be mandated to be recorded either in the column of ownership or occupancy but may be recorded in the remark’s column.

                             Supreme Court

JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA JUSTICE A.S. BOPANNA

The STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS. Vs. PUJARI UTTHAN AVAM KALYAN SAMITI & ANR.

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4850 OF 2021

6th September 2021

Author: HEMANT GUPTA, J.

Citation: 2021 ALL SCR (ONLINE) 406

Print Page

Whether a person can claim title over an immovable property based ownership certificate issued by chief officer of Municipality?

 To prove the title, the petitioner relied on a document titled 'Ownership Certificate' signed by Chief Officer of respondent no. 2. It is a rule of interpretation of the law that to understand the real nature of the document and the intention of the parties, the document shall be read as a whole. We advert to the said document. It reads that "on the report of Council inspector, it is certified that the house nos. 1-27-42 and 1-27-43 Mhalla Kile ark, is of Shri Bomen Nanabhai.” It is a document dated 20.01.1971. It shows the house numbers. The local Government normally gives the numbers to the houses for identification purposes and to know who is occupying that house and is liable to pay the local taxes. The owner or occupier must furnish such information while filling the assessment form for the house/ building and other taxes. On the basis of information supplied in the assessment form, the local Government refers to it only to impose the liability of paying the various taxes. The authenticated document of title of the land may be sale deed, gift deed, will deed, or any other legally-recognized mode. Such legally recognized executed documents are the only authenticated proof of title. The Department of Land records maintains the title record of the lands on the basis of such authenticated proof title.

{Para 24}

25. We are not oblivious of the principle that the possession follows the title. However, when the title of the land is questioned on the basis of a better title, the burden to prove the title of the persons in possession shifts on him. A person in possession is presumed to be the owner of the land until the better title is proved against him. In other words, the possession, howsoever long, is not the proof of the title.

26. In the State of Maharashtra, the land records are maintained under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code. The Office of Land Records, constituted under the said Code, is the authentic Office. Despite the land record being maintained by such Office, the law is settled that bare entry in revenue or record of right does not prove the title. So far as the record maintained by Municipal Councils regarding the immovable properties is concerned, it is maintained for the building and various other tax purposes only. A document titled" Ownership Certificate" is of the year 1971. It mentions only house numbers and not the plot in dispute. Therefore, it would not be received as the title proof in favour of the petitioner. Besides the title of survey no.9, Princes Femina had claimed the title over the plot in dispute. The said suit is dismissed. But the fact remains that there was no valid and legal exchange of lands. The plot in dispute was never validly transferred in favour of the petitioner's father.

Bombay High Court

JUSTICE RAVINDRA V. GHUGE JUSTICE S. G. MEHARE

Hoshang s/o Boman Nanabhoy Dordi Vs. The State of Maharashtra & ANR.

WRIT PETITION NO. 5786 OF 2021

29th October 2021

Author: S. G. Mehare, J.

Citation: 2021 NearLaw (BombayHC Aurangabad) Online 2005

Print Page

Whether purchaser of mortgaged property can claim the right of redemption even after passing the decree of foreclosure?

  The equity of redemption is a right which is subsidiary to the right of ownership. Such right is not over and above the right of ownership purchased by the plaintiff. The expression equity of redemption is a convenient maxim but an owner, who has stepped into the shoes of the mortgagor, after the purchase from the mortgagor but before filing a suit for foreclosure is entitled to redeem the property in terms of Section 60 of the Act. The second issue which needs to be addressed is,

(ii) Whether the decree obtained in a suit for foreclosure operates as res judicata and the right of redemption stands extinguished by the decree of the Court? {Para 19}

20. The High Court has held that the decree for foreclosure will operate as res judicata on account of the fact that the appellant filed an application for stay of the execution proceedings. The Executing Court has dismissed such an application. Such dismissal of the application in execution proceedings would operate as res judicata. It was also held that the appellant has lost right of redemption which is coextensive with the right of foreclosure.

21. An application for stay of execution does not have any trapping of a decree as is contained in Order XXI Rules 101 & 103 of the Code. The said provision reads as under:

“101. Question to be determined.-All questions (including questions relating to right, title or interest in the property) arising between the parties to a proceeding on an application under rule 97 or rule 99 or their representatives, and relevant to the adjudication of the application, shall be determined by the Court dealing with the application, and not by a separate suit and for this purpose, the Court shall, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law for the time being in force, be deemed to have jurisdiction to decide such questions.

xx xx xx

103. Orders to be treated as decrees. – Where any application has been adjudicated upon under rule 98 or rule 100, the order made thereon shall have the same force and be subject to the same conditions as to an appeal or otherwise as if it were a decree.”

22. The only effect of filing of an application for stay of the execution would be that the appellant can be said to be aware of the fact that there is a decree for foreclosure passed against him which has not been stayed by virtue of the order of the Court. There is no determination of the claim as is contemplated in terms of Order XXI Rule 97 or Rule 99 of the Code having force of decree. The declining of stay of execution will not operate as res judicata only because Section 11 Explanation VII of the Code is applicable to the execution as well.

23. Therefore, the findings recorded by the High Court that the appellant is bound by the decree passed in the suit for foreclosure  is not tenable inter alia because the appellant was not impleaded as a party, though mandated under Section 91 of the Act and Order XXXIV Rule 1 of the Code. The mortgagee was aware of the transaction of purchase in view of the judgment of this Court in Dr. Govinddas as well as for the reason that the possession of the appellant was recorded in the revenue record. The subsequent conduct of mortgagee who has taken possession from the appellant also corroborates the fact that the mortgagee was aware of the factum of sale and possession of the appellant but still have chosen not to implead him as a necessary party. Still further, it is apparent from the pleadings itself that the original mortgagor had colluded with the mortgagee. Therefore, the right conferred by Section 60 of the Act does not stand extinguished by decree of the Court which is to be binding and had to be passed in the presence of the necessary parties and should not be collusive.

Reportable

Supreme Court of India

Narayan Deorao Javle (Deceased ) ... vs Krishna on 17 August, 2021

Print Page

When is the question of title and ownership relevant in the suit for an injunction?

 In the backdrop of the contentions put forth, though there could be no cavil to the position relating to the relevance of possession being the prime consideration in a bare suit for injunction as contended by the learned senior advocate for the Plaintiff, each case will have to be examined on its own merits keeping in view the nature of the pleading put forth before the trial court and the understanding of the case with which the parties have gone to trial. If this aspect is kept in view the very nature of the plaint averments would indicate that the parties to the suit are related to each other and the property which was being commonly enjoyed by their predecessors was partitioned under the Deed No. 2617/2007. The present dispute had arisen when the Plaintiff was seeking to put up a construction of the wall and the Defendants had objected to the same. The prayer in the plaint reads as hereunder:

(a) issue a permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the Defendants and their people from trespassing into the plaint Schedule property or questioning the right of the Plaintiff or obstructing the enjoyment of the Plaintiff or committing waste trespassing into the plaint Schedule property or destroying the peaceful life of the Plaintiff.

(Emphasis supplied)

12. The emphasised portion in the prayer would provide an indication that the Defendant had challenged the right of the Plaintiff and not merely interference with the lawful possession as claimed by the Plaintiff and as such the prayer was sought. Further the averments raised by the Defendants in the written statement refers to the manner in which the right to the property had flowed ever since the partition through the Deed No. 651/1964 and the measurement thereof. The location of the shares enjoyed by the parties is referred and the right as claimed by the Plaintiff is disputed. 

13. The Issues No. 1 and 2 framed by the trial court refers to the identity of the property as also the ownership and possession thereof. The Plaintiff did not object to the said issues nor did the Plaintiff file any application Under Order 14 Rule 5 Code of Civil Procedure seeking amendment or to strike out the said issues. On the other hand, the evidence was tendered based on the issues and the Issue Nos. 1 and 2 were considered by the trial court and was answered in favour of the Plaintiff wherein it is held that the Plaintiff is in ownership and possession of the plaint Schedule property. In that background when the Defendant had questioned such conclusion reached by the trial court and had put forth the contention and also sought for an opportunity to produce additional evidence by filing an application Under Order 41 Rule 27 Code of Civil Procedure and in that background when the lower appellate court was of the opinion that the said issues need reconsideration in the background of the additional evidence and opportunity being provided to the Defendant the appropriate course was to remand the matter to the trial court and provide opportunity which was accordingly done.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 1892 of 2020 

Decided On: 02.03.2020

Jose   Vs.  Johnson

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Indira Banerjee and A.S. Bopanna, JJ.

Citation: (2020) 3 SCC 780,MANU/SC/0251/2020.

Print Page

Whether in eviction proceeding landlord is required to prove absolute ownership?

Qua the challenge to ownership of the respondent as also to relationship of owner-tenant between the parties, the learned Trial Court has noted the respondent has purchased the subject property from one Jitender Kumar Sachdeva and Smt. Iqbal Kaur, predecessors in title vide registered a sale deed dated 02.06.2012. A copy thereof has been placed on record and thus the respondent has become the sole and absolute owner of the premises in question. Admittedly, the petitioner has not denied the execution of the sale deed in favour of the respondent by the predecessors in title. His assertion that the respondent was unemployed and a student at the time of the purchase of the property and hence the transaction is hit by the provisions of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act is a frivolous argument. All that the respondent need to show in these proceedings is the respondent/owner has a better title than the tenant/petitioner and nothing more. The respondent is not obliged to prove absolute ownership as is required under the Transfer of Property Act, since this is not a lis determining his title.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI

RC. Rev. 398/2018 and CM Appl. 33400/2018

Decided On: 10.01.2019

 Neelam Sharma Vs.   Ekant Rekhan

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Yogesh Khanna, J.

Citation: 2019(1) RCR(Rent) 464

Print Page

Whether person in possession of immovable property can be declared as owner of it?

The decision in Abdul Latif and Ors. V. Nagar Vikas Pranyas, Udaipur (Supra) case is also helpful to the appellants. When the plaintiffs had shown their longstanding possession, defendants failed to prove the title as well as had not come with a case that plaintiffs are trespassers or encroachers; under such circumstance merely because name of one Shrirang was shown as 'Pattedar', will not confer a title in him. The maxim "possession follows title" ought to have been invoked by virtue of Section 110 of Evidence Act by both the Courts below. Another fact is also required to be considered is that, ownership of a land cannot remain in abeyance. Here a third party is not coming forward to claim ownership. If both the parties to the proceeding are held to be 'not the owners', then such situation leads to a chaos which is not expected and especially to avoid such situation provisions like Section 110 of Evidence Act have been enacted. Therefore, the substantial question of law is answered in the affirmative. In consequence the second appeal succeeds.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (AURANGABAD BENCH)

Second Appeal No. 924 of 2005

Decided On: 26.04.2019

 Dhondiba  Vs.  Maruti and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Vibha Kankanwadi, J.

Citation: 2019(6) MHLJ 254

Print Page

Whether suit for declaration that plaintiff has become owner by adverse possession is maintainable?

Both the substantial questions of law relates to the issue of ownership by adverse possession. In the case of Gurdwara Sahib V/s. Gram Panchayat Village Sirthala and another MANU/SC/0939/2013 : (2014) 1 Supreme Court Cases 669, the Apex Court has held that the claim of adverse possession can be made use of by way of shield and not as a sword, as a defence when arrayed as a defendant in a proceeding and, therefore, the suit for declaration that the plaintiffs have become owner by adverse possession is not maintainable.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Second Appeal No. 618 of 1997

Decided On: 24.09.2018

Sadashiv Mahadeo Shinde Vs. Shakuntala Pandurang Shinde and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

A.M. Dhavale, J.

Citation: 2019(1) MHLJ 911

Print Page

Whether tenant can claim that he has become owner of tenanted premises by adverse possession?

The only issue raised before me qua ownership has been duly
answered by the learned Additional Rent Controller on the facts so
brought before him. The petitioners even in this petition have not filed
any title documents viz. GPA etc to show they had actually purchased the
property from the late father of the respondent. Rather, admittedly, the
petitioners have not paid the entire consideration and neither till date
have filed any suit for specific performance of any alleged contract.
8. Admittedly, the property was converted into free-hold and a
conveyance deed dated 16.01.2012 was executed in favour of the
respondent, yet the petitioners slept over the matter and failed to file any
suit for cancellation of the conveyance deed which the petitioners now
allege was wrongly executed in favour of the respondent. Can they now
file such suits? It appears to be doubtful.
9. Lastly it was argued since the petitioner are in possession of
premises for more than 20 years hence are owners by adverse possession.
This is a baseless argument. Admittedly the petitioners entered the
premises as tenant. Their entry was never forceful. They rather failed to

assert their alleged ownership rights, legally by filing relevant suits etc., hence they cannot allege adverse possession.

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Pronounced on: 08th January, 2019
RC.REV. 319/2018 and CM APPL.28108/2018

THOMAS GERVASE Vs RAVIN MEHRA 

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YOGESH KHANNA

Print Page

Whether one brother will become owner of property if his name alone is mentioned in municipal corporation record?

 As regards the question of limitation, the appellants have contended that the cause of action was triggered in the year 1995, when their predecessor Ramchandra expired and they claimed half share in the property, while the respondents have contended that the appellants should have rushed to the Court when house was constructed by Trimbakrao, their predecessor, in the year 1974 and when his name was reflected in the Corporation records as the owner of the house. It is to be appreciated that Ramchandra and Trimbakrao were brothers and it is conceded even by the respondents that relations between them were cordial throughout. The construction of a structure of only about 600 sq.ft. on the suit property was not an event that would demonstrate that the rights of Ramchandra were being refuted by Trimbakrao. In any case, there is no evidence on record to show that the aforesaid structure was constructed exclusively by Trimbakrao or the expenses were jointly borne by the two brothers or that Ramchandra had exclusively paid the expenses for the same. Mere recording of the name of Trimbakrao in the Corporation record, would be of no avail because the authorities had issued notices and recovered non-agricultural assessment tax even from Ramchandra and at best such documents demonstrated that both parties were jointly in ownership and possession of the suit property. The appellants are, therefore, justified in claiming that the cause of action was actually triggered when the respondents acted in a manner which signified that they were refuting the claim of half share in the suit property made by them in the year 1995 upon demise of their predecessor Ramchandra. Therefore, the trial Court erred in holding that the suit filed by the appellant was barred by limitation.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (NAGPUR BENCH)

Second Appeal No. 324 of 2002

Decided On: 23.03.2018

Hemant  Vs. Naresh and Ors.

Print Page

How landlord should prove his title in eviction suit against tenant?

 It is a settled principle of law laid down by this Court that in an eviction suit filed by the landlord against the tenant under the Rent Laws, when the issue of title over the tenanted premises is raised, the landlord is not expected to prove his title like what he is required to prove in a title suit.

46. In other words, the burden of proving the ownership in an eviction suit is not the same like a title suit. (See Sheela and Ors. v. Firm Prahlad Rai Prem Prakash MANU/SC/0150/2002 : 2002 (3) SCC 375, Para 10 at page 383 and also Boorugu Mahadev & Sons and Anr. v. Sirigiri Narasing Rao and Ors. MANU/SC/0044/2016 : 2016 (3) SCC 343, Para 18 at page 349).

47. Similarly, the law relating to derivative title to the landlord and when the tenant challenges it during subsistence of his tenancy in relation to the demised property is also fairly well settled. Though by virtue of Section 116 of the Evidence Act, the tenant is estopped from challenging the title of his landlord, yet the tenant is entitled to challenge the derivative title of an assignee of the original landlord of the demised property in an action brought by the assignee against the tenant for his eviction under the Rent laws. However, this right of a tenant is subject to one caveat that the tenant has not attorned to the assignee. If the tenant pays rent to the assignee or otherwise accepts the assignee's title over the demised property, then it results in creation of the attornment which, in turn, deprives the tenant to challenge the derivative title of the landlord. [See Bismillah De (dead) by Legal Representatives v. Majeed Shah MANU/SC/1557/2016 : 2017 (2) SCC 274 Para 24]

48. It is equally well-settled law with regard to attornment that it does not create any new tenancy but once the factum of attornment is proved then by virtue of such attornment, the old tenancy continues. (See Uppalapati Veera Venkata Satyanarayanaraju and Anr. v. Josyula Hanumayamma and Anr. MANU/SC/0343/1961 : AIR 1967 SC 174).

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 4249 of 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 27775 of 2017)

Decided On: 20.04.2018

Apollo Zipper India Limited Vs. W. Newman and Co. Ltd.

Print Page

Whether incidental finding given to issue relating to ownership will be res judicata in subsequent suit?

 In such situation, as the Appellate Court has committed an error in framing the issue relating to the ownership of the Respondents therein (Petitioners herein) over the suit plot, this Court has corrected that error and set-aside that finding mainly and mostly on the ground that such issue was not raised for consideration as the suit was simpliciter for injunction. Thus, the issue relating to the ownership of the present Petitioners over the strip of land was not at all "directly and substantially" for consideration in the earlier proceedings. In view thereof, the incidental finding given to the issue relating to the ownership of the Petitioners over the strip of land, cannot operate as res-judicata; especially when the parties to this suit are also not the same parties to the previous suit.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Writ Petition No. 8909 of 2017

Decided On: 31.01.2018

 Vishal Bhagwan Chandanshive Vs. Sangli Miraj and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Dr. Shalini Phansalkar Joshi, J.

Citation: 2018 (4) MHLJ 178

Print Page

Whether it is permissible to seek relief of declaration without seeking consequential relief?

 In view of above, the law becomes crystal clear that it is not permissible to claim the relief of declaration without seeking consequential relief. In the instant case, suit for declaration of title of ownership had been filed though, the Plaintiff/respondent No. 1 was admittedly not in possession of the suit property. Thus, the suit was barred by the provision of Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act and, therefore, ought to have been dismissed solely on this ground. 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 1374 of 2008

Decided On: 17.07.2012

 Union of India (UOI) Vs.  Ibrahim Uddin and Ors.

Print Page