LexSWARN K. JAIN versus RAVI MAHAJAN AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 5 S.C.R 1030 A SWARN K. JAIN \/. RAVI MAHAJAN AN'D ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 5471 of 2000) B APRIL 2, 2008 [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND t LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, JJ.] Transfer of Property: c Suit for possession - Omission by plaintiff to give details as to when the cause of action arose - No infirmity in finding of High Court that the omission was deliberate and not inadvertent - Hence, no case for interference by Supreme Court- J & K Transfer of Property Act, 1977 - s. 138- Transfer D of Property Act, 1882. In a suit for possession, the plaintiff alleged that the ~ defendant had encroached upon his land and bounded the same by a boundary wall. It was alleged that when the E plaintiff objected to illegal occupation of suit land by the defendants, the latter in turn offered to purchase the land, but negotiations for sale of the suit land did not materialize and illegal occupation by defendants over the suit land is continuing. F The defendants took the stand that the plaintiff by his own act and conduct was estopped from filing the suit in question as he had pocketed the entire sale ¥ consideration. They further submitted that the plaintiff purposefully did not mention when the cause of action G arose and this omission was not inadvertent but willful. When the High Court referred to three money receipts, the plaintiff did not say a word as to how and under what circumstances they were executed. The plaintiff also ... feigned ignorance as to when construction of bound"lry H 1030 SWARN K. JAIN v. RAVI MAHAJAN AND ORS. 1031 [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.] wall was raised. The High Court ultimately came to a A finding that omission by the plaintiff to give· details of the 1 cause of action was intentional. The said finding is challenged in the present appeal. Dismissing the appeal, the Court B ~ HELD:1. It was required of the plaintiff to lead as to how the writing came into existence as regards receipt of money. No detail about cause of action was mentioned and no date was also indicated when the construction was made. [Para 8] [1034-F] c 2. The finding of High Court does not suffer from any infirmity. The High Court has elaborately discussed as to why it came to the conclusion that the omission regarding cause of action was deliberate and was not inadvertent omission. This was a case where no interference is called D ~ for with the well-reasoned order of the High Court. [Paras 10, 11] [1035-D, E & F] CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 5471 of 2000 E From the final Judgment and Order dated 19.07.1999 of the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir at Jammu in LP.A. (C) No. 8 of 1993. Naresh Kaushik, Lalita Kaushik, B.S. Methaila, Arnita Kalka!, Parag Goyal and Satish D. for the Appellant. F ·+ S.R. Singh, Bimal Roy Jad and Sunita Pandit for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered -by G DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Challenge in this appeal is to ·1 the judgment of a Division Bench of the J & K High Court ... reversing the judgment of learned Single Judge of the High Court . .2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows: H 1032 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 5 S.C.R. A 3. Stand of the defendants who were the appellants before the High Court was that the plaintiff by his own act and conduct is estopped from filing the suit in question seeking possession from the defendants as he had pocketed the entire sale consideration and was not entitled to claim relief. It was also B submitted that the cause of action when arose was not purposefully mentioned by the plaintiff and this omission is not inadvertent but is willful. Reference was also made to Section 138 of the J & K Transfer of Property Act, 1977 (1920 AD). Plaintiff's advocate contended that the doctrine of part c performance as embodied in the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (Central Act), does not find mention in the Act and, therefore, defendants being tress-passers claim of the plaintiff cannot be defeated. 4. The High Court referred to three documents i.e. receipts D dated 30.1.1974, 19.11.1973 and 23.3.1974. While appearing as PW-1, the plaintiff did not say a word as to how and under what circumstances the documents were executed. He also admitted the execution of the documents and construction of boundary wall having been done by the defendants. However, E he feigned ignorance as to when the construction was raised. The height of the wall and
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.