9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Suit for possession of a house with mesne profits against defendant No. 2. 2. Validity of the contract to sell the house by defendant No. 1 to the plaintiff. 3. Defendant No. 2's contentions regarding an oral will, kararnamas, and improvements made to the house. 4. Plaintiff being a benamidar for another individual, Vallabhdas. 5. Claim for compensation for improvements made by defendant No. 2. Analysis: 1. The plaintiff filed a suit seeking possession of a house with mesne profits from defendant No. 2, who was in possession of the property. The house originally belonged to Valibai, who passed away leaving her daughter, defendant No. 1, as the sole heir. Defendant No. 1 entered into a contract to sell the house to the plaintiff, which was executed and registered as per law. Defendant No. 2, who was in possession, raised various contentions, including claims of an oral will, kararnamas, and improvements made to the property. However, defendant No. 2's arguments regarding the will and kararnamas were unsuccessful. 2. The court addressed the issue of the plaintiff potentially being a benamidar for Vallabhdas. The legal validity of a benamidar bringing a suit in their own name without the beneficial owner being a party had been a subject of conflicting opinions. However, the court referred to the decision of the Privy Council in Gur Narayan v. Sheolal Singh, which clarified that in proceedings involving a benamidar, the beneficial owner is bound by the outcome. The court also cited previous Bombay High Court decisions supporting the maintainability of suits by benamidars. 3. Another point raised was regarding the claim for compensation for improvements made by defendant No. 2 to the property. The court noted that such claims under Section 51 of the Transfer of Property Act could only be made by a transferee who made improvements in good faith believing they were entitled to the property. The court distinguished a previous case where compensation was allowed to a transferee acting in good faith under the belief of absolute title transfer, which was not applicable in the current scenario. 4. Ultimately, the court dismissed the points raised by defendant No. 2's counsel, upholding the lower appellate court's decision. The court also addressed the issue of costs, deciding that each party should bear their own costs of the appeal. The court highlighted defendant No. 1's blameworthy conduct and directed that the benefit of the improvements made by defendant No. 2 would go to the plaintiff, affirming the lower court's decree while adjusting the costs for the second appeal accordingly.
|
