JANATHA DAL PARTY versus THE INDIAN NATIONAL CONGRESS & OTHERS

Citation: [2014] 1 S.C.R. 747 · Decided: 21-01-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN · Disposal: Dismissed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

[2014] 1 S.C.R. 747 
JANATHA DAL PARTY 
v. 
THE INDIAN NATIONAL CONGRESS & OTHERS 
(Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 38991 of 2013) 
JANUARY 21, 2014 
[K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, AND VIKRAMAJIT SEN, JJ.] 
Suit: 
A 
B 
Suit by Indian National Congress for declaration of title c 
to and for possession of Congress Bhavan in City of 
Bangalore after split in Congress - Held: The order of EC/ 
and Supreme Court in Sadiq Ali's case clearly indicate that 
the Congress then led by Indira Gandhi had established rights 
on the properties in question -
On facts, it is clearly found 
0 
that Congress (0) or Janata Dal had no right in the suit 
property and as such the various lease deeds executed by 
them also cannot stand in the eye of law - Time granted to 
respondents to vacate the premises. 
The plaintiffs-respondents nos. 1 to 4 filed a suit for 
E 
declaration of plaintiffs nos. 1 and 2 over the suit property 
and for its possession, stating that suit land was donated 
by its owner for construction of a Congress House. A 
registered Gift Deed dated 22.4.1949 in respect of the suit 
land was executed by its owner in favour of the 
F 
Bangalore City Congress Committee. The All India 
Congress Party constructed the Congress Bhavan on the 
suit land. Subsequently, as a result of split in the party, 
Congress (J) was declared by the Election Commission 
of India as the Indian National Congress and the said G 
decision was upheld by the Supreme Court in Sadiq Ali's 
case. However, when the suit property came in 
possession of Congress (0) and Janata Party, lease 
deeds were executed in favour of defendants 3 and 4 and 
747 
H 
748 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2014) 1 S.C.R. 
A defendants 9 to 12 claimed themselves as tenants. The 
plaintiffs' case was that Janata Party and /or Congress 
(0) had no right, title or interest for granting the lease 
deeds. The case of the appellant-defendant no. 1 was that 
the judgment in Sadiq Ali would not confer any title, 
B ownership or possession of the suit property on the 
plaintiffs. Further, it was also pleaded that the suit itself 
was barred by the law of limitation. The trial court decreed 
the suit. RFA filed by Janata Party was dismissed by the 
Division Bench of the High Court. 
c 
Dismissing the petition, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. It cannot be accepted that the decision of 
the ECI or the judgment of this Court in Sadiq Ali would 
have no bearing, so far as the facts of the instant case are 
D concerned. ECI, after applying the test of majority at the 
organizational level and the legislative wings, took the view 
that Congress (J) group of Congress came to be recognized 
as the Congress for all purposes. The order of ECI and this 
Court clearly indicate that the Congress then led by Indira 
E Gandhi had established rights on the properties in 
question. Since, on facts, it has found that the defendants 
have no right over the property in question, the various 
lease deeds executed by them also cannot stand in the 
eye of law. [para 10] [755-D-H; 756-A] 
F 
Shri Sadiq Ali and another v. The Election Commission 
of India, New Delhi and others 1972 (2) SCR 318 = (1972) 
4 sec 664 - relied on. 
1.2. The suit property was gifted by registered gift 
G deed dated 22.4.1949 by its owner in favour of Bangalore 
City Congress Committee. Plaintiffs could successfully 
trace their title and interest over the suit property towards 
that gift deed executed in the year 1949, coupled with the 
various declarations by the ECI recognizing the plaintiff 
H 
JANATHA DAL PARTY v. INDIAN NATIONAL 
749 
CONGRESS 
as the real Congress and the Judgment of this Court A 
affirming the same. [para 11] [756-A-C] 
1.3. Janata Party came into picture only in thET year 
1977. On facts, it is clearly found that Congress (0) had 
no right in the suit property. In the instant case, Janata 
8 
Dal (Secular) was impleaded as defendant only on 
14.10.2003 and the disputed property was known as the 
Congress Bhavan till the formation of Janta Dal in the 
year 1977. It is relevant to note that the defendants had 
never accepted plaintiffs as the owner of the property. On 
C 
the contrary, their specific case was that the 1st 
defendant was the owner of the property. On facts, it was 
found that the 1st defendant had no title over the suit 
property. Further, the entire burden of proving that the 
possession is adverse to that of the plaintiffs, is on the 
defendant. On the other hand, the possession of the suit D 
property was throu

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