Rules of the Game Were Never Changed: Delhi High Court Upholds CSIR’s Power to Prescribe Minimum Threshold in CASE-2023 Resignation Does Not Forfeit Earned Pension: Calcutta High Court Declares Company Superannuation Benefit as ‘Wages’ Under Law Fraud Vitiates Everything—Stranger Can File Independent Suit Against Compromise Decree: Bombay High Court Refuses to Reject 49-Year-Old Challenge at Threshold Article 21-A Cannot Be Held Hostage to Transfer Preferences: Allahabad High Court Upholds Teacher Redeployment to Enforce Pupil–Teacher Ratio Arbitrator Cannot Rewrite Contract Or Travel Beyond Pleadings: Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes ₹5.18 Crore Award Director’ in GeM Clause 29 Does Not Mean ‘Independent Director’: Gujarat High Court Sets Aside Technical Disqualification Section 25(3) Is Sacrosanct – Removal of a Trademark Cannot Rest on a Defective Notice: Delhi High Court Not Every Broken Promise Is Rape: Delhi High Court Draws Clear Line Between ‘Suspicion’ and ‘Grave Suspicion’ in False Promise to Marry Case Section 37 Is Not A Second Appeal On Merits: Delhi High Court Refuses To Re-Appreciate Evidence In Challenge To Arbitral Award Recovery After Retirement Is Clearly Impermissible: Bombay High Court Shields Retired Teacher From ₹2.80 Lakh Salary Recovery Paying Tax Does Not Legalise Illegality: Bombay High Court Refuses to Shield Alleged Unauthorized Structure Beneficial Pension Scheme Cannot Be Defeated By Cut-Off Dates: Andhra Pradesh High Court Directs EPFO To Follow Sunil Kumar B. Guidelines On Higher Pension Claims Equity Aids the Vigilant, Not Those Who Sleep Over Their Rights: Punjab & Haryana High Court Refuses to Revive 36-Year-Old Pay Parity Claim Students Cannot Be Penalised For Legislative Invalidity: Supreme Court Protects Degrees Granted Before 2005 Yash Pal Verdict Restructuring Without Fulfilment of Conditions Cannot Defeat Insolvency: Supreme Court Reaffirms Default as the Sole Trigger Under Section 7 IBC Section 100-A CPC Slams The Door On Intra-Court Appeals In RERA Matters”: Allahabad High Court Declares Special Appeal Not Maintainable Mental Distance Between ‘May Be’ and ‘Must Be’ Is Long: Patna High Court Acquits Six in Murder Case Built on Broken Chain of Circumstances Where Corruption Takes Roots, Rule of Law Is Replaced by Rule of Transaction: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Bail to DIG Harcharan Singh Bhullar

Supreme Court Upholds Eviction and Mesne Profits in Land Dispute Case

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a recent Judgement , the Supreme Court of India has upheld the eviction and mesne profits awarded to the plaintiff in a long-standing land dispute case. The bench, comprising Justices Pankaj Mithal and Dipankar Datta, dismissed the appeal filed by the defendant, Ghanshyam, thereby affirming the judgments of the lower courts.

The dispute revolved around the ownership of a property located in H-768, J.J. Colony, Shakarpur, Delhi. The plaintiff, Yogendra Rathi, had claimed ownership based on an agreement to sell, power of attorney, possession memo, receipt of payment of sale consideration, and a will. According to Yogendra Rathi, he had allowed Ghanshyam to occupy a portion of the property as a licensee for a fixed period. However, Ghanshyam failed to vacate the premises after the license period ended, leading to the initiation of legal proceedings.

The defendant, Ghanshyam, contested the suit on the grounds that the documents presented by Yogendra Rathi were fraudulent and manipulated. However, the trial court, as well as the lower appellate court, had ruled in favor of Yogendra Rathi, holding that there was no evidence of fraud or manipulation.

The Supreme Court examined the documents presented by Yogendra Rathi and concluded that the agreement to sell, payment of sale consideration, and possession memo established the plaintiff's possessory rights over the property. The court further stated that Ghanshyam, who had executed a power of attorney and a will, did not confer any rights upon Yogendra Rathi, as these documents were not considered as transfer or title documents.

The bench also emphasized that the practice of recognizing agreements to sell, powers of attorney, and wills as conferring rights in immovable property violated the statutory law, which required the execution and registration of a transfer document for conferring right and title in property.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court upheld the decree of eviction and awarded mesne profits to Yogendra Rathi. The court declared that Ghanshyam, having lost possession and occupying the property merely as a licensee, had no right to continue occupying it.

Date of Decision: June 2, 2023

GHANSHYAM VS YOGENDRA RATHI                 

[gview file="https://lawyer-e-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/02-Jun-2023-Ghanshyam-Vs-Yogendra.pdf"]

Latest Legal News