BHAGWAN SARUP NAGAR (D) BY LRS versus RAM KISHAN

Citation: [2009] 1 S.C.R. 331 · Decided: 16-01-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2009] 1 S.C.R. 331 
BHAGWAN SARUP NAGAR (D) BY LRS 
A 
. >-
v. 
RAM KISHAN 
; 
(Civil Appeal No. 258 of 2009) 
JANUARY 16, 2009 
B 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM 
SHARMA, JJ.] 
• 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908- $. 100- Second appeal 
- Case of plaintiff-owner that defendant-licensee not vacating c 
property despite revocation of licence - Suit for injunction, 
possession of property and mesne profits by plaintiff - Plea 
of adverse possession by defendant - Dismissal of suit even 
though holding that plaintiff as owner of property -
Suit 
decreed in favour of plaintiff by first appellate court - Second 
D 
appeal - Allowed by High Court holding that plaintiff failed to 
prove his ownership - On appeal held: Conclusions of High 
Court erroneous - It proceeded as if first appellate court 
reversed findings as regard ownership and trial court did not 
consider the documents - Hence, matter remitted to High 
E 
Court for afresh decision. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 258 
of 2009. 
"" 
From the Judgment and final order dated 26.10.2005 of 
F 
the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Regular 
Second Appeal No. 2696 of 2000. 
Himanshu Gupta and Shivaji M. Jadhav for the Appellants. 
Pradeep Kumar Arya and Chander Shekhar Ashri for the 
G 
Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
331 
H 
A 
332 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2009] 1 S.C.R. 
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted. 
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a learned 
Single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court allowing 
the appeal filed by the respondent. The appeal was filed under 
8 Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short the 
'CPC'). Appellant as plaintiff has filed a suit for mandatory 
injunction with a prayer that the defendant-respondent be 
directed to ensure possession to him of the demised premises 
description of which was given in the plaint. He also claimed 
C Rs.3,900/- towards mesne profit for use and occupation of the 
property QY the respondent. It was the case of the plaintiff that 
he was the owner of the house and the defendant was his 
cousin and he had inducted him as a licensee in two rooms. 
Thereafter, when the defendants started misbehaving, he 
issued a notice to him on 27.9.1991 revoking his licence. Since 
D he failed to vacate the portion of the house in dispute, mesne 
profit was claimed and the occupation of the demised property 
was also claimed. The defendant took the plea that the property 
was exclusively in continuous peaceful possession of the 
defendant for last more than 50 years ~s its owners without 
E paying rent to anybody including the plaintiff. It was also denied 
that he was ever inducted as a licencee. Five issues were 
framed by the trial court. It is to be noted that replication was 
filed by the plaintiff. After considering the evidence brought on 
record it was held that the plaintiff was the owner of the property 
F in dispute but all the issues were decided against him. The 
issues were as follows: 
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of injunction 
as alleged in the plaint? OPP. 
G 
2. Whether the plaintiffs entitled to recover Rs.3,900/- as 
mesne profits as alleged in the plaintiff? OPP. 
H 
3. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the 
present suit? OPD. 
.. . 
lr 
BHAGWAN SARUP NAGAR (D) BY LRS v. RAM KISHAN 333 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.] 
. .. 
4. Whether the suit of the plaintiffs not maintainable? OPD. A 
5. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the 
present suit? OPD. 
3. The finding of the trial court was reversed by the First 
B 
appellate court and the suit filed by the plaintiff was decreed. 
When the second appeal was admitted, the following question 
was formulated: 
"Whether the learned lower Appellate Court could reverse 
the findings without considering the documents Ex.01, 02 c 
and D3." 
4. The High Court came to hold that the appeal was bound 
to succeed as the plaintiff has failed to prove his ownership. 
Mere fact that adverse possession has been claimed by the D 
defendant paled into insignificance and no benefit of the same 
can be given to the plaintiff. 
5. In aupport of the appeal learned counsel for the appellant 
submitted that the approach of the High Court was clearly 
erroneous. It is not a fact that Exh. D1 to D7 were not E 
considered. In fact the trial court observed as follows: 
"Now coming to with regard of creation of relationship of 
Plaintif

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.