Section 164 CrPC Statement Recorded Without Procedural Safeguards Or 'Cooling-Off' Period Not A Valid Confession: Jharkhand High Court Anticipatory Bail Cannot Be Denied Merely Because Investigation Is At A Nascent Stage If Custodial Interrogation Is Not Indispensable: Telangana High Court Actual Pay Drawn During Last 10 Months Must Be Basis For Pension Calculation, Regardless Of Notional Pay In Parent Bank: Punjab & Haryana High Court Limitation For Redemption Of Usufructuary Mortgage Starts Only When Mortgage Money Is Paid Or Tendered: Allahabad High Court Exclusion Of Natural Heir From Will Not A Suspicious Circumstance If Execution Is Duly Proved: Punjab & Haryana High Court Right To Travel Abroad Is A Basic Human Right; Permission Cannot Be Denied Merely Because Visit Is For 'Social Or Celebratory' Purpose: Andhra Pradesh High Court Citizen Cannot Be Externed Merely For Raising Grievances Against Government Decisions: Bombay High Court Lack Of Opportunity To Cross-Examine Partition Commissioner Does Not Vitiate Final Decree; Report Is Part Of Record: Calcutta High Court Section 27 Evidence Act Recoveries Inadmissible If Police Had Prior Knowledge Of Location Before Recording Disclosure: Delhi High Court Foreigners Act | Burden Of Proof To Establish Citizenship Solely On Proceedee, Never Shifts; Prescription For Parkinson's No Proof Of Mental Illness To Explain Testimony Contradictions: Gauhati High Court Trial Court Erred In Abating Suit While Application To Bring Legal Heirs On Record Was Pending: Gujarat High Court Places Of Worship Act 1991 Not A Shield Against Land Acquisition By State For Public Purpose: Allahabad High Court Unregistered Partition Deed Creating New Rights In Immovable Property Inadmissible In Evidence: Himachal Pradesh High Court Illiteracy No Excuse For Filing False Income Tax Returns, Court Must Presume Culpable Mental State Under Section 278E: Jharkhand High Court Trial Court Must Consider Convenience Of Family & Accused's Right To Assist Counsel While Deciding Jail Shifting Applications: J&K High Court Investigation Substantially Complete, Offence Carries Max 7 Years Jail: Karnataka High Court Grants Bail To Police Officers In Corruption Case Buyer's Knowledge Of Title Defect Doesn't Extinguish Statutory Warranty Of Title Unless Sale Deed Specifically Excludes It: Kerala High Court Madras High Court Sets Aside Appointment Of PAs To Judges, Says Relaxation Of Qualifications Via Circular Violates Article 14 BNSS | Mere Allegation Of Calling Deceased To Spot Not Sufficient To Deny Bail To Woman If Charge Sheet Filed: Orissa High Court Amendment To Rectify Property Description In Agreement To Sell Can Be Allowed At Any Stage Of Specific Performance Suit: Delhi High Court NDPS | Confession Before Police Cannot Be Sole Basis For Prosecution: Telangana High Court Grants Bail No Judicial Sanctity For Adulterous Relationships: J&K High Court Refuses To Quash Abduction FIR Involving Married Woman Habitual Offender Accused Of Brutal Murder Of SC Community Member Denied Bail: Kerala High Court Prosecution Fails To Prove Murder Charge As Recovery Witnesses Turn Hostile: Uttarakhand High Court Acquits Man Acquittal In Criminal Case Based On Benefit Of Doubt Does Not Automatically Absolve Employee From Disciplinary Liability: Madhya Pradesh High Court Punjab & Haryana HC Quashes FIR Against Woman For Dressing Pet Dog As Lord Krishna Personal Laws Cannot Be Used As Shield To Commit Gang Rape Under Garb Of Nikah Halala: Allahabad High Court

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