-
by Admin
07 May 2024 2:49 AM
In a recent judgment, the Supreme Court of India dismissed an appeal filed by Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. And another, thereby affirming the maintainability of separate legal suits for possession and damages in cases of property disputes.
The bench, comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Rajesh Bindal, ruled against the appellants who challenged the High Court’s decision dismissing their application under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the C.P.C. in a suit filed by ATM Constructions Pvt. Ltd. This suit claimed liquidated damages for the wrongful occupation of a property post the expiration of its lease on December 31, 1997.
In a significant observation, the Court noted, “suit for possession and suit for claiming damages for use and occupation of the property are two different causes of action.” This statement underlines the judgment’s essence, emphasizing the legal distinction between seeking possession and claiming damages in property-related litigations.
The dispute centered around a property initially leased to Bharat Petroleum’s predecessors. Post the lease’s expiration, ATM Constructions, the current owner, sought possession. Subsequently, they also filed for damages due to the wrongful occupation of the property by the appellants from January 1, 1998, till June 2022, when possession was finally handed over.
Rejecting the appellants’ contention that the suit for damages was not maintainable, as it followed a suit for possession without claiming damages, the Supreme Court highlighted the distinct legal grounds for both claims. The Court’s decision sets a precedent, clarifying that a suit for damages can be separately pursued even if the initial suit only sought possession.
Further, the Court distinguished this case from the precedent set in Virgo Industries (Eng.) Private Limited v. Venturetech Solutions Private Limited, thereby underlining the specific circumstances and the unique legal basis in this instance.
Date of Decision: 30th November 2023
M/S BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. AND ANOTHE VS ATM CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD
