VINOD KUMAR DHALL versus DHARAMPAL DHALL (DECEASED)THROUGH HIS LRS. & ORS.

Citation: [2018] 3 S.C.R. 961 · Decided: 26-04-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARUN MISHRA, UDAY UMESH LALIT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
961
VINOD KUMAR DHALL
v.
DHARAMPAL DHALL (DECEASED)THROUGH HIS LRS. &
ORS.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 4534-4535 of 2018)
APRIL 26, 2018
[ARUN MISHRA AND UDAY UMESH LALIT, JJ.]
Suit:
Suit for restoration of possession, mesne profit and for
permanent injunction – In respect of house property – Claiming to
be owner of the property – Against brother (defendant No.1) and
sister (defendant No. 2) of the plaintiff – Defendants’ case was that
the property was a family property and not exclusively owned by
the plaintiff; and the possession of the defendant was in the capacity
of owner – Trial Court decreed the suit – Decree was further affirmed
by High Court in first appeal and in Review – On appeal, held: The
facts and circumstances of the case indicate that the property in
question was a family property and not exclusive property of the
plaintiff – The courts below have acted perversely and in most
arbitrary and illegal manner, while accepting the ipse dixit of the
plaintiff and in decreeing the suit – Legal inferences from admitted
facts have not been correctly drawn – Concurrent finding of facts
which are impermissible and perverse cannot have binding effect
on the Court – Suit is liable to be dismissed – Appeal allowed.
Surendra Kumar v. Phoolchand (Dead) Through Lrs.
& Anr. (1996) 2 SCC 491; Union of India v. Moksh
Builders & Financiers Ltd. & Ors. (1977) 1 SCC 60;
Sri Marcel Martins v. M. Printer & Ors. (2012) 5 SCC
342; Vathsala Manickavasagam & Ors. v. N. Ganesan
& Anr. (2013) 9 SCC 152 – relied on.
Case Law Reference
(1996) 2 SCC 491
relied on
Para 10
(1977) 1 SCC 60
relied on
Para 10
(2012) 5 SCC 342
relied on
Para 10
(2013) 9 SCC 152
relied on
Para 10
[2018] 3 S.C.R. 961
961
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
962
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 3 S.C.R.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 4534-
4535 of 2018.
From the Judgment and Order dated 27.10.2017 and 08.12.2017
of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in RFA No. 400 of 2010 and
Review Petition No. 480 of 2017 in RFA No. 400 of 2010 respectively.
Mahabir Singh, Sr. Adv., K. R. Chawla, Ajai Kumar Bhatia, Vijay
S. Bishnoi, Advs. for the Appellant.
E. C. Agrawala, Shwetan K. Sailakwal, Tanmaya Agarwal, Vibhor
Verdhan, Advs. for the Respondent.
The following Order of the court was delivered:
O R D E R
1. Leave granted.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
3. The defendant is in appeal aggrieved by the judgment and
decree passed by the trial court, as affirmed by the High Court in first
appeal and review applied had also been rejected by the High Court.
The plaintiff-respondent, Dharampal Dhall (since deceased), filed a suit
for restoration of possession, mesne profits and for a permanent injunction
with respect to House No.ED-48, Tagore Garden, New Delhi.
4. The plaintiff – Dharampal Dhall came with a case that he
acquired the leasehold rights on plot admeasuring 149.33 square yards
under the perpetual lease deed granted by the President of India in his
favour and registered on 31.01.1966.  The plaintiff raised a construction
over the plot and obtained the necessary sanction from the competent
authority as per the site plan and got installed electricity, water, and
sewerage connections in the premises.  However, it was stated in the
plaint itself that entire family started living in the said house.  The marriage
of plaintiff, as well as defendants and all sisters, were solemnized from
the house in question.  When the relationship of Defendant No.2- the
sister of the plaintiff, became strained with her husband, she started
living in the said house along with her daughter.  Defendant No.1 for
some time in 1971 had resided out of Delhi.  Father of the parties –
Kashmiri Lal Dhall died on 10.08.1980, leaving behind several properties
at Delhi.  Defendant No.1 started living separately with effect from the
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
963
year 1986.  He acquired a house at Moti Nagar, New Delhi, and one
more residential accommodation, i.e., GH-1/318, Pashchim Vihar, New
Delhi.
5. It was further averred in the plaint that the mother of the parties
died in the premises in question in the year 1990.  The house remained in
the custody/ possession of the Defendant No.2.  At the relevant point of
time, the plaintiff was posted at Bombay.  The house was furnished.
Furniture of the plaintiff was still lying in the house.  Plaintiff came back
to Delhi in the year 1993. However, at the same time, Defendant No.2
was permitted to occupy the house.  Later on, it was found that Defendant
No.1
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.