BEHRAM TEJANI & ORS. versus AZEEM JAGANI

Citation: [2017] 1 S.C.R. 132 · Decided: 06-01-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
[2017] l S.C.R. 132. 
BEHRAM TEJANI & ORS. 
v. 
AZEEM JAGANI 
(Civil Appeal No. 150 of20 I 7) 
JANUARY 06, 2017 
(PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE AND 
UDAY UMESH LALIT, JJ.) 
Possession - Gratuitous possession, gives no right or interest 
in the property - Respondent-plaintiff sought injunction restraining 
the defendants from dis-possessing him and his maternal 
grandmother from the suit pre111ises, though admitting that by way 
of Will, with respect to the suit premises, his maternal grandfather 
bequeathed his entire interest in favour of his brothers (defendants-
appe//ants) - Trial Court rejected respondent~· prayer for interim 
injunction - High Court set aside the order of trial court - On 
appeal, held: It is not the case of the respondent that either he or 
his grandmother have any right independent of the Will or that the 
Will bequeathed any interest in re:.pect of the premises in question 
in their favour - Sub111ission of appellants that grandmother of the 
respondent did not have any right qua the premises but was permitted 
to occupy it purely out of love and affection, not without merit - A 
person holding the premises gratuitously would not acquire any 
right/interest in the property -
The status of respondent '.s 
grand111other was that of a gratuitous licensee and that of the 
respondent was purely of a relative stciying with such gratuitous 
licensee - Therefore, Trial court rightly rejected respondents prayer 
for interim injunction. 
Allowing the appeal and disposing of the contempt petition, 
the Court 
. HELD: A person holding the premises gr.ituitously 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. (Para 14) [140-D) 
132 
BEHRAM TEJANl & ORS. v. AZEEM JAGANI 
133 
Rame Gowda (Dead) by LRs. v. M Varadappa Naidu 
A 
(Dead) by LRs. and Anrs. 2004 (1) SCC 769 : [2003] 6 
Suppl. SCR 850 - referred to. 
Maria Margarida Sequeira Fernandes and others v. 
Erasmo Jack De Sequeira (Dead) through LRs. 2012 
(5) sec 370 : [2012] 3 SCR 841 - relied OU. 
B 
Case Law Reference 
[2003] 6 Suppl. SCR 850 
[2Ql2] 3 SCR 841 
referred to 
relied on 
Para 12 
Para 13 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 150 of 
C 
2017. 
From the Judgment and Order dated I 7.09.2013 of the High Court 
ofJudicature at Bombay in Appeal from Order (St.)No. I 5590 of2013. 
WITH 
Contempt Petition (C) No. 368 of20!4 in SLP (C) No. 35464 of 
2013. 
Dushyant Dave, Sr. Adv. Ayaz Bilawala, Mahesh Agarwal,Abhinav 
Agrawal, Rishabh Parikh, E. C. Agrawala, Ad vs. for the Appellants. 
Ms. lndu Malhotra, Sr. Adv. Ms. Manjira Dasgupta, Ms. Liz 
Mathew, Advs. for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
UDAY UMESH LALIT, J. I. Leave granted. 
D 
E 
2. This appeal challenges the judgment and Order dated 
F 
17.09.2013 passed by the High Court of Bombay in Appeal from Order 
(ST) No.15590 of 2013 quashing and setting aside the Order dated 
29.04.20 I 3 passed by the Bombay City Civil Court in Notice of Motion 
No.344 of2013 in SuitNo.408 of2013. 
3. On 4.02.2013, aforesaid Suit No.408of2013 was filed by the 
G 
respondent submitting inter alia:-
;'The Plaintiff along with his Maternal grand-mother Mrs. 
Noorbanoo Mohammed Ali Tejani are in use, occupation and 
possession of the premises known as Tej Kunj, I" Floor, Plot 
H 
134 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[20 I 7] I S.C.R. 
No.214 D, Byramjee Jeejeebhoy Road, Bandstand, Bandra (West), 
Mumbai 400050, hereinafter referred to as 'the suit 
premises' ....... The Defendant Nos. I, 2, 3 and 5 are the Paternal 
uncles of the Plaintiff's mother i.e. Mrs. Zeenat S. Jagani viz. the 
brothers of deceased father named Mohammed Ali H. Tejani (since 
deceased) and Defendant No.6, is a son of the Defendant No.5 
and Defendant No.4 is the sister of Defendants 1,2,3 and 
5 ....... Mohammed Ali H. Tejani (called the said Deceased) was 
a Co-owner along with. Defendant Nos. I 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 standing thereon and known as Tej 
Kunj ........ The said deceased executed a Will dated 28•h 
September 1991 under which the deceased bequeathed his 1J7•h
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.