VISHRAM @ PRASAD GOVEKAR & ORS. versus SUDESH GOVEKAR (D) BY LRS. & ORS.

Citation: [2016] 12 S.C.R. 174 · Decided: 14-12-2016 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.K. SIKRI · Disposal: Dismissed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
[2016] 12 S.C.R. 174 
VISHRAM @ PRASAD GOVEKAR & ORS. 
v. 
SUDESH GOVEKAR (D) BY LRS. & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal Nos. 12068-12070of2016) 
DECEMBER 14, 2016 
[A. K. SIKRI AND N.V. RAMANA, JJ.] 
Suit - Ownership and possession - Property dispute between 
the parties related to each other - Suit property acquired by the 
father as a permanent grant for the construction of the house -
Suit for specific performance and mandatory injunction by 
respondents(children and son-in-laws of the owner)_ against the 
appellants(owner :S brother and others) - Sought demolition of the 
construction carried out by the appellants on the suit property -
Dismissal by trial court, however, allowed by first appellate court 
and High Court - On appeal, held: Respondents successfully 
D discharged their onus of proving the ownership by filing appropriate 
documents - Statement about the respondents and appellants as 
to-owners in title and in possession pertains to adjoining property 
not suit property -Plea of the appellants that relief for possession 
should have been sought is clearly untenable - Respondents sought 
relief of mandatory injunction seeking demolition of the construction 
E 
carried out by the appellants on the suit property as it was illegally 
put up by the'-tlppellants - Appellants have made new construction 
on the suit property and its demolition would result in wastage of 
the expenditure incurred on the construction - To balance the 
equities, in exercise of powers u/Art.142, respondents to take 
F 
possession of the house without its demolition, and, at the same 
time, compensate the appellants by paying the cost of 
construction - Constitution of India - Art. 142. 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 The first appellate court as well as the High 
G Court held that the plaintiffs are the owners of the suit property, 
which rights they have inherited from VG, father of plaintiffNos.1-
3. Findings of the courts below are that the suit property, was 
acquired by VG from Communidade of Anjuna as a permanent 
grant for the construction of the house. In order to prove the 
ownership, the said grant was produced op record as also the 
H 
174 
VISHRAM @ PRASAD GOVEKAR v. SUDESH GOVEKAR (D) 
175 
BYLRS. 
plaintiffs filed evidence of the Inventory Proceedings initiated 
A 
upon the death of VG which described_the suit property. Duly 
promulgated survey records showing the property standing in 
the name of VG were also produced. While holding that conclusion 
of the first appellate court that the said documents clearly evinced 
the ownership of VG, the High Court analysed these documents, B 
coupled with the defendants' admission. [Para 15) [184-F-H; 185-
A) 
1.2 A closer and minute look into the pleadings would show 
that there is no admission on the part of the plaintiffs about the 
co-ownership insofar as suit property is concerned. In the plaint, c 
the plaintiffs have given the description of the suit property as 
bearing Survey No. 251/2. It is mentioned that VG acquired this~ 
property from Communidade of Anjuna; and that on this suit 
property, incomplete structure was raised by VG which the 
plaintiffs referred to as the 'suit house'. Thus, the ownership is 
claimed by the plaintiffs through VG who acquired the property 
D 
bearing Survey No. 251/2 (the suit property) on which he 
constructed incomplete structure (the suit house). The plahitiffs 
have stated that towards the eastern side of the suit property, 
there exists another property bearing Survey No. 25114. The 
plaintiffs pleaded that on thl$ land, whereupon a house is also 
constructed0 belonged to their grandfather JG (father of defendant 
E. 
No.1) and it 'is this property which the plaintiffs say is in the co-
ownership of the plaintiffs and defendants. Thus, the statement 
about the plaintiffs and defendants as co-owners in title and in 
'possession pertains to property bearing Survey No. 251/4 which 
is not the subject matter of the suit. As far as the suit property is 
concerned, it bears Survey No. 25112, in respect of which, there 
is no admission on the part-of the plaintiffs. [Para 16) (186-G-H;' 
l87-A-E] 
. 
· 1.3 Once this aspect of so-called admission of the plaintiffs 
F 
is found to be non-existing, the entire edifice of the argument of G 
the defendants crumbles down. This is also a complete answer to 
the argument that the suit of the plaintiffs was not maintainable 
in the absence of any declaration as to title. The plaintiffs 

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