Trademark Pirates Face Legal Wrath: Delhi HC Enforces Radio Mirchi’s IP Rights Swiftly Madras High Court Upholds Extended Adjudication Period Under Customs Act Amid Allegations of Systemic Lapses Disputes Over Religious Office Will Be Consolidated for Efficient Adjudication, Holds Karnataka High Court Motive Alone, Without Corroborative Evidence, Insufficient for Conviction : High Court Acquits Accused in 1993 Murder Case Himachal Pradesh HC Criticizes State for Delays: Orders Timely Action on Employee Grievances Calls for Pragmatic Approach to Desertion and Cruelty in Divorce Cases: Calcutta High Court Orders Fresh Trial Juvenile Tried as Adult: Bombay High Court Validates JJB Decision, Modifies Sentence to 7 Years Retrospective Application of Amended Rules for Redeployment Declared Invalid: Orissa High Court NDPS Act Leaves No Room for Leniency: HC Requires Substantial Proof of Innocence for Bail No Protection Without Performance: MP High Court Denies Relief Under Section 53A of Transfer of Property Act Delays in processing applications for premature release cannot deprive convicts of interim relief: Karnataka High Court Grants 90-Day Parole Listing All Appeals Arising From A Common Judgment Before The Same Bench Avoids Contradictory Rulings: Full Bench of the Patna High Court. Age Claims in Borderline Cases Demand Scrutiny: Madhya Pradesh HC on Juvenile Justice Act Bishop Garden Not Available for Partition Due to Legal Quietus on Declaration Suit: Madras High Court Exclusion of Certain Heirs Alone Does Not Make a Will Suspicious: Kerala High Court Upholds Validity of Will Proof of Delivery Was Never Requested, Nor Was it a Payment Precondition: Delhi High Court Held Courier Firm Entitled to Payment Despite Non-Delivery Allegations Widowed Daughter Eligible for Compassionate Appointment under BSNL Scheme: Allahabad High Court Brutality of an Offence Does Not Dispense With Legal Proof: Supreme Court Overturns Life Imprisonment of Two Accused Marumakkathayam Law | Partition Is An Act By Which The Nature Of The Property Is Changed, Reflecting An Alteration In Ownership: Supreme Court Motor Accident Claim | Compensation Must Aim To Restore, As Far As Possible, What Has Been Irretrievably Lost: Supreme Court Awards Rs. 1.02 Crore Personal Criticism Of Judges Or Recording Findings On Their Conduct In Judgments Must Be Avoided: Supreme Court Efficiency In Arbitral Proceedings Is Integral To Effective Dispute Resolution. Courts Must Ensure That Arbitral Processes Reach Their Logical End: Supreme Court Onus Lies On The Propounder To Remove All Suspicious Circumstances Surrounding A Will To The Satisfaction Of The Court: Calcutta High Court Deeds of Gift Not Governed by Section 22-B of Registration Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court Testimony Of  Injured Witness Carries A Built-In Guarantee Of Truthfulness: Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds Conviction for Attempted Murder POCSO | Conviction Cannot Be Sustained Without Conclusive Proof Of Minority - Burden Lies On The Prosecution: Telangana High Court Credible Eyewitness Account, Supported By Forensic Corroboration, Creates An Unassailable Chain Of Proof That Withstands Scrutiny: Punjab and Haryana High Court Jammu & Kashmir High Court Grants Bail to Schizophrenic Mother Accused of Murdering Infant Son

Licensees Must Vacate Post-Termination, No Protection under Transfer of Property Act: Kerala High Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a recent judgment, the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam upheld a mandatory injunction directing the defendants to vacate the plaint schedule property, reaffirming the principles of property rights and license termination. The court's decision, delivered by Justice C. Pratheep Kumar, emphasizes that the defendants, who were residing as licensees, cannot claim possession or protection under Section 44 of the Transfer of Property Act.

Credibility of License Termination: The court highlighted the validity of the license termination by the plaintiffs, who had purchased the property from Devaraja Gowder. The plaintiffs terminated the license on 12th July 2003 and promptly filed the suit for mandatory injunction on 21st July 2003. "There was no delay in filing the suit for mandatory injunction after the termination of the license, negating any claim of adverse possession by the defendants," noted the court​​.

Status of the Defendants as Licensees: Addressing the status of the defendants, the court observed that the defendants continued to reside on the property with the permission of Devaraja Gowder, the original owner, and thus remained licensees. "The defendants’ residence in the building after the execution of the partition deed in 1957 can only be as licensees," the judgment stated, rejecting the defendants' claims of adverse possession​​.

The judgment discussed the applicability of Section 44 of the Transfer of Property Act, emphasizing that the protection under this section is available only to co-owners. Since the defendants were not co-owners but licensees, they could not claim this protection. "The first defendant, being a licensee under Subbayya Gowder, is not entitled to claim the protection under the second paragraph of Section 44 of the Transfer of Property Act," the court clarified​​.

Justice C. Pratheep Kumar remarked, "The defendants, not being co-owners of the plaint schedule property and the residential building situated therein, are not entitled to get the benefit of paragraph 2 of Section 44 of the Transfer of Property Act. Since the 1st defendant along with the 2nd defendant are residing in the dwelling-house in the plaint schedule property as licensees, on termination of license, they are bound to vacate the plaint schedule property"​​.

The High Court’s decision reinforces the property rights of purchasers against licensees post-termination of the license. By affirming the plaintiffs' right to evict the licensees, the judgment underscores the significance of prompt legal action following license termination and clarifies the application of property laws in similar disputes. This ruling sets a significant precedent for future cases involving property rights and the status of licensees under the Transfer of Property Act and Easements Act.

 

Date of Decision: 24th May 2024

SIVALINGAPPA GOWDER VS N.A. ANIDAS & NA AJIDAS

Similar News