Apex court digest - Jan.2017 [4],

Or.39, rule 1 and 2 C.P.C. - suit for injunction - interim application for interim injunction - Trial court rejected - High court granted - Apex court set aside the High court and restore the trial court order-  The Plaintiff along with his Maternal grand-mother  are in use, occupation and possession of the  premises-The Defendant Nos.1, 2, 3 and 5 are the Paternal uncles  of  the Plaintiff’s mother -Defendant No.6,  is a son of the Defendant No.5 and Defendant No.4 is the sister  of  Defendants1,2,3 and 5 -Mohammed Ali H. Tejani (called the said Deceased)  was  a  Co-owner along with Defendant Nos.1 to 5 in respect of a Plot of  Land  bearing Plot No.202-D, along with the building comprising of ground with  one  upper floor-The said deceased  executed a Will dated 28th September 1991 under which  the  deceased  bequeathed  his 1/7th share in the plot of land in favour of the Defendant Nos.1 to  5.  The said Will is probated in the High Court - the maternal grand-mother of the respondent  was merely allowed to  use  and occupy the suit premises by the defendants out of love and sympathy  without any fees or compensation -In  fact the suit does not claim any independent right either of his grand-mother  or of the respondent himself.- Apex court held that An occupation of the property by a person as  an agent or a servant acting at the instance of the owner will  not  amount  to actual physical possession - (1) No one acquires title to the property if he or she was allowed  to  stay in the premises gratuitously. Even by long possession of  years  or  decades such person would not acquire any right or interest in the said property.(2) Caretaker, watchman  or  servant  can  never  acquire  interest  in  the property irrespective of his long possession. The caretaker or  servant  has
to give possession forthwith on demand.(3) The  courts  are  not  justified  in  protecting  the  possession  of  a caretaker, servant or any person who was allowed to  live  in  the  premises
for some time either as a friend, relative, caretaker or as a servant.(4) The protection of the court can only  be  granted  or  extended  to  the person who has valid, subsisting rent agreement, lease agreement or  license agreement in his favour. (5) The caretaker or agent holds property of the principal  only  on  behalf of the principal. He acquires no right or interest  whatsoever  for  himself in such property irrespective of his long stay or possession.” Thus, a person holding the premises gratuitously or in  the  capacity  as  a caretaker or a servant would not  acquire  any  right  or  interest  in  the property and even long possession in that capacity  would  be  of  no  legal
consequences. In the circumstances City Civil Court was right and  justified in rejecting the prayer for interim injunction and that decision  ought  not to have been set aside by the High Court. We therefore,  allow  the  appeal, set aside the judgment under appeal and restore the Order  dated  29.04.2013 passed by the Bombay City Civil Court in Notice of Motion No.344 of 2013  in
Suit No.408 of 2013.

Popular posts from this blog

Sec.20 of C.P.C - Territorial Jurisdiction - suit for recovery of money based on Contract - As per the admitted plaint averments, the office of the defendants is located in Pargi, the offer made by the petitioner was accepted at Pargi, the contract was entered between the petitioner and the respondents at Pargi and the same was executed within the jurisdiction of the Court at Pargi.- Plaint returned with objection - as an after thought added the acceptance of contract was received at Malkajgiri - Trail court returned the plaint to file in proper court - Revision - Their Lordships held that if filing of suit is based on making of a contract, the cause of action arises at the place where the offer is accepted and if the suit is based on termination of a contract, the cause of action arises at the place where such termination order is received. Admittedly, the suit is based on making of a contract and not on termination of the contract.- dismissed the revision - 2015 Telangana & A.P. msklawreports

Sec.482 Cr.P.C. - Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Examination (Prevention of Malpractice and Unfair Means) Act, 1997 - Part B question Paper was missed ( said to be distributed to A1 along with other students by A2 an invigilator ) - Charge - she was negligent in performing the invigilation duties. - Their Lordships held that Mere negligence in performing invigilation duties, does not attract the offence set-forth in the Act. Therefore, in absence of any allegation that the petitioner herein has committed the offence set out in Section 5 of the Act, she cannot be subjected to prosecution for which the penalty has been provided under Section 8 of the Act.- Quashed the criminal proceedings - 2015 Telganga & A.P. msklawreports

Section 5 of Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 read with Rule 9(1)(a)(i), (ii) and (iii) of the Rules of 1989. - Powers of Revenue Court - Petitioners are the legal heirs of Late Sri A. Penta Reddy and respondents 1 to 3 are the brothers of Penta Reddy - Petitioners claimed as Separate Property - Brothers/Respondents claimed as Joint family Property - MRO held summary enquiry and held that it is Joint family Property - No Appeal to RDO - after the lapse of 12 years filed Revision directly to Joint Collector - JC. dismissed the revision - this Writ - Their Lordships held that in the absence of any suit for Declaration of title after receiving Rule 9 notice with in 3 months, the MRO can decide the dispute summarily - since no appeal is filed nor any suit is filed in any court - the orders of MRO can not be challanged after the lapse of 12 years - dismissed the revision - -2015 Telangana & A.P. MSKLAWREPORTS