LexRAM DAAN (D) THROUGH LRS. versus URBAN DEVELOPMENT TRUST
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2014]-8 S.C.R. 360 RAM DAAN (0) THROUGH LRS. V. URBAN DEVELOPMENT TRUST (Civil Appeal No.7119 of 2014) AUGUST 1, 2014 [J. CHELAMESWAR AND A.K. SIKRI, JJ.] Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Suit for permanent injunction by appellant against defendant-respondent - C Sustainability - Held: On facts, since there was no clear pleading as to who was the real owner of the suit property and in absence of any assertion that respondent was the owner of the property, appellant entitled for injunction, subject to the right of the true owner of the property (whoever it is) to evict o the appellant in accordance with law. The appellant filed suit seeking decree of permanent injunction restraining the respondent from dispossessing the appellant from a plot of land. The suit E was dismissed. The order was upheld by the appellate Court and the High Court. Hence the present appeal. Allowing the appeal and decreeing the suit, the Court HELD:1.1. There is no assertion that the respondent F is the real owner of the property. Assuming for the sake of argument that the respondent has some authority to evict the appellant, the eviction must be by a process known to law, i.e., either by filing a suit to evict the appellant or by resorting to some other procedure duly G authorized by law. The respondent placed reliance on Section 91 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act which authorises the summary eviction of encroachers of the government property by following the procedure prescribed therein. However, from the written statement H 360 RAM DAAN (D) THROUGH LRS. v. URBAN 361 DEVELOPMENT TRUST it does not appear that the respon~ent took any steps A contemplated under Section 91 of the said Act. [Paras 15, 17] [367-B-D] 1.2: .Since there is no clear pleading in the case on hand as to who is the real owner of the suit schedule B property and in absence of any assertion that the respondent is the owner of the property, the appellant is entitled for an injunction, as prayed, subject to the right of the true owner of the property (whoever it is) to evict the appellant in accordance with law. [Para 20] [368-C, D] C Perry v. C/issold, 1907 AC 73 and Nair Service Society Ltd. v. K. C. Alexander & Others 1968 SCR 163 : AIR 1968 SC 1165 - referred to. 1907 AC 73 1968 SCR 163 Case Law Reference referred to referred to Para 13 Para 13, 19 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 7119 of 2014 From the Judgment and Order dated 23.01.2012 in SBCA No. 68 of 1993 of the High Court Of Rajasthan at Jodhpur. Shekhar Prit Jha, Sunil Puri, Vikrant Bhardwaj for the appellants. Aruneshwar Gupta, Nikhil Singh for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by CHELAMESWAR, J. : 1. Leave granted. 2. This appeal arises out of a judgment dated 23rd D E F G H 362 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2014) 8 S.C.R. A January, 2012 of the High Court of Rajasthan at Jodhpur in an appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short "the CPC"). By the impugned judgment, the appeal was dismissed. 8 3. The appellant herein filed an Civil Suit No.71 of 1976 on the file of the Additional Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, No. 1 Bikaner seeking a decree of permanent injunction restraining the respondent herein from dispossessing the appellant of a plot of land admeasuring 4914 sq. yards and C further not to demolish the construction existing over the said property. The appellant pleaded uninterrupted possession of the suit scheduled property from the year 1942. From the averments of the plaint, it appears that the appellant encroached on the said property in the year 1942. D E F G H 4. The respondent herein disputed the claim of uninterrupted possession from the year 1942 and stated in his written statement as follows:- "In the year 1965 to remove the illegal possession of the plaintiff in notice was issue to him and upon receiving no response, the boundary wall of the suit property was dismantle. However, again he illegally occupied the said property." It is further stated in the written statement:- " .... improvement trust got removed the possession of the plaintiff in 1965. Therefore, the plaintiff again repossessed the same and action is being contemplated to remove him from the suit property. However, issuing these period a new policy was amounted by the state Govt. according to which a policy of regularization unauthorized posses
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.