9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Whether plot No. 19 was reserved for a Dharmshala as claimed by the plaintiffs. 2. Whether the co-owners had the right to sell plot No. 19 to the defendant. 3. Whether the plaintiffs were entitled to possession of plot No. 19 for constructing a Dharmshala. Analysis: 1. The plaintiffs contended that plot No. 19 was reserved for a Dharmshala, but the court found no concrete evidence of such a reservation being made. The representation allegedly made over a loudspeaker during the housing scheme advertisement lacked credibility as it was not backed by clear authority, rendering the argument baseless. The court emphasized that announcements made through modern contrivances like microphones do not constitute binding representations, and in this case, it was merely a promotional tactic without legal standing. 2. Despite some sale-deeds describing plot No. 19 as a Dharmshala in the annexed maps, the court held that this did not signify a perpetual restriction on the plot's use. The registered deed of sale to Manohari Devi did not contain any covenant restricting the use of the plot, and subsequent purchasers were deemed to have constructive notice of this. The court distinguished this case from precedent where maps were annexed to leases for boundary delineation, emphasizing that the sale-deeds did not reference any map regarding plot No. 19's use, indicating the absence of any reservation or restriction. 3. The plaintiffs argued for estoppel, claiming that the co-owners were estopped from disputing the reservation of plot No. 19 for a Dharmshala. However, the court rejected this contention, stating that the evidence of representation was vague, and subsequent purchasers were aware of the plot's status. Estoppel was considered a rule of evidence and did not confer property interests unless under specific circumstances. The court concluded that the co-owners retained title to plot No. 19, and the plaintiffs had no legal basis for their suit, leading to the dismissal of the appeal by the Supreme Court. In summary, the Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, ruling against the plaintiffs' claim regarding the reservation of plot No. 19 for a Dharmshala. The judgment emphasized the lack of concrete evidence supporting the plaintiffs' contentions and the absence of any legally binding restrictions on the use of the plot, ultimately denying the plaintiffs' request for possession and construction of a Dharmshala.
|
