2014 (3) TMI 1139 - HC - Indian Laws

Absolute owners of property - licensee, who was temporarily allowed to reside in one of the rooms of the property claimed permanent injunction - It is urged that the defendants are licencees and cannot continue to retain possession - status of the defendants vis- -vis the suit property - Held that - As admittedly, the defendants came into possession on permission granted by the father of the plaintiffs who permitted them to enter/use the premises for a limited period, the defendants were using the premises as Licensee. The defendant admittedly as per the written statement was inducted in the suit property as a licencee. Shri Ganpat Ram has now died on 20.08.2010. Their license has been terminated. He cannot challenge the title of the licensor now at this stage after 14 years. It is clear that the defendants are licensees. The license has been terminated. The written statement fails to bring out any title or right in the defendants to continue to retain possession - there is no merit in the contentions of the defendant - the suit is decreed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Ownership of the suit property.
2. Status of the defendants as licensees.
3. Validity of the documents and title claimed by the plaintiffs.
4. Defendants' claim of adverse possession.
5. Defendants' reliance on a Will.
6. Defendants' failure to appear in court.
7. Entitlement to possession and mesne profits.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Ownership of the Suit Property:
The plaintiffs claimed absolute ownership of the property located at plot No.323/1-A, Block-D, Sangam Vihar, New Delhi, measuring 200 sq. yards. Plaintiff No.1 purchased the property along with his late brother, each owning 100 sq. yards. The ownership was supported by a general power of attorney, an agreement to sell, and a receipt for consideration of Rs. 40,000/-. Upon the death of plaintiff No.1's brother, plaintiff No.2 inherited his share, making them the absolute owners.

2. Status of the Defendants as Licensees:
The defendants were permitted by the father of plaintiff No.1 to reside in one room of the suit property temporarily. The permission extended over time, but the plaintiffs requested the defendants to vacate in July 2010. The defendants filed a suit for permanent injunction, which was dismissed by the Civil Judge and the Additional District Judge. The court determined that the defendants were licensees, having permissive possession without any payment, and their license had been terminated.

3. Validity of the Documents and Title Claimed by the Plaintiffs:
The defendants contended that the plaintiffs had no title to the suit property, as the documents were merely a general power of attorney and an agreement to sell. However, the court found that the documents, including the general power of attorney, agreement, and receipt, were admitted by the plaintiffs and marked as exhibits. The court concluded that the plaintiffs had legally entered into possession of the property in 1985, and the father of the plaintiffs permitted the defendants to reside there, establishing the defendants' status as licensees.

4. Defendants' Claim of Adverse Possession:
The defendants claimed they had exclusive possession of the property and were entitled to claim adverse possession. The court dismissed this claim, stating that the defendants' possession was permissive and not adverse.

5. Defendants' Reliance on a Will:
The defendants presented a Will allegedly executed by Shri Ganpat Ram, bequeathing half of the suit property to defendant No.2. The court found that the Will did not confer any title to defendant No.2, as the property was originally owned by the plaintiffs and their deceased brother. Under the Hindu Succession Act, the mother (plaintiff No.2) is a Class-I heir, and the father (Shri Ganpat Ram) is not. Therefore, the Will could not override the statutory inheritance rights.

6. Defendants' Failure to Appear in Court:
The defendants repeatedly failed to appear in court for recording their statements under Order 10 CPC read with Section 165 of the Evidence Act. Despite multiple opportunities, they did not comply, leading the court to reserve judgment.

7. Entitlement to Possession and Mesne Profits:
The court concluded that the defendants, being licensees, had no right to continue in possession after the termination of their license. The plaintiffs' suit for possession was decreed, and the issue of mesne profits and damages was left for further proceedings before the Joint Registrar.

Conclusion:
The court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiffs, granting them possession of the suit property. The issue of mesne profits and damages was to be addressed in subsequent proceedings. The defendants' defenses were found to be frivolous and without merit, and their failure to appear in court further weakened their case.