LexBOARD OF TRUSTEES OF PORT OF KANDLA versus HARGOVIND JASRAJ & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2013) 1 S.C.R. 589 BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF PORT OF KANDLA v. HARGOVIND JASRAJ & ANR. (Civil Appeal No. 153 of 2013) JANUARY 09, 2013 [T.S. THAKUR AND GYAN SUDHA MISRA, JJ.] LEASE: A B Termination of /ease - Vesting of title in lessor - Lease c of subject land terminated and possession thereof taken over .as per Panchnama - Suit by transferee of lessee for declaration and injunction - Held: With the termination of /ease, title to suit property vested in lessor, ipso jure - That being so, possession of a vacant property would follow title 0 and also vest in the lessor - Panchnama drawn up at site recorded the factum of actual takeover of possession from /es,see, whereafter possession too legally vested in lessor - Besides, there could be no better evidence to prove dispossession of lessee from plot jn question than her own admission contained in her communication addressed to the E Senior Estate Manager of the appellant-Trust, genuineness whereof was not disputed - It is, therefore, held that dispossession of lessee had taken place pursuant to termination of /ease in terms of the Panchnama. F LIMITATION ACT, 1963: · Suit for declaration - Limitation - Held: A suit for declaration not covered by Article 57 of the Schedule to the Act must be filed within 3 years from the date when the right G to sue first arises - A suit for declaration that the termination of the lease was invalid and, therefore, ineffective could have been instituted by lessee as and when the right first accrued and for that purpose, dispossession of lessee was not 589 H 590 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 1 S.C.R. A necessary as dispossession is different from termination of lease - However, dispossession having taken place, lessee ought to have filed suit within three years of date of dispossession - Suit having been instituted after nearly eighteen years was clearly barred by limitation - Courts below B fell in error in holding the suit as within time. The subject-land admeasuring 1891.64 square metres was leased to respondent no. 2 by the appellant Port- Trust. However, as the lesse committed default in payment of the outstanding amount and interest, the C lease was terminated by order dated 08-08-1977 w.e.f. 13.12.1978. Possession of the subject land was taken under the Panchnama dated 14.12.1978, a copy whereof was sent to the lessee on 20-12-1978 with a certificate that the possession had been taken. Respondent no. 1 filed D suit Suit No. 77 of 1996 for a declaration and permanent injunction, questioning the termination of the lease by the appellant Port-Trust. The plaintiff-respondent no. 1 claimed that he had purchased the suit land from respondent no. 2 in the year 1991, and on that basis had E asked the Port-Trust in the year 1994 to transfer the lease rights in his favour. The trial court decreed the suit. The first appellate court held that the lease had not been validly terminated and the same continued to be subsisting. However, it set aside the part of the judgment F of the trail court whereby it has directed to transfer the lease rights in favour of plaintiff-respondent no. 1. The second appeal of the Port-Trust having been dismissed, it filed the instant appeal. G H Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. It is manifest that there is no clear finding of fact regarding possession of the suit property having continued with the lessee, no matter the lease stood terminated and a panchnama evidencing takeover of the . BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF PORT OF KANDLA v. 591 HARGOVINO JASRAJ & ANR. possession drawn and even communicated to her. The A -question whether the possession of the suit plot was taken over did not engage the attention of the first appellate court or the High Court although the latter proceeded on the basis that the findings of fact recorded by the courts below were concurrent, without pointing B out as to what those findings were and how the same put the issue regarding takeover of possession from the lessee beyond the pale of any challenge. [Para 14-15) [599-D-E; 600-E-G] 1.2. Suffice it to say that the respondents are not C correct in urging that the dispossession of the lessee pursuant to the termination of the lease was not proved as a fact. It is significant to note that with the termination of the lease, the ti.tie to the suit property vested in the lessor, ipso jure. That being so, possession of a vacant D property would follow tit
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.