Bench:
Dalveer Bhandari, H.L. Dattu, Deepak Verma
Issue:
Whether the property belonged to the appellant sister?
Facts:
• This appeal comes from the judgement passed by the High Court of Bombay, Bench at Goa.
• Appellant No 1 and respondent No 1 (now deceased) were brother and sister in dispute of possession of property.
• Appellant’s title of the said suit property was clearly admitted, and never disputed by the original respondent, her brother.
Appellant's contentions:
• Appellant claims to be the sole owner and in exclusive possession of the suit property, was given to her brother as caretaker, as appellant was married to Navy officer who was moving all the time.
• The respondent has kept appellant, his own sister, out of her suit property for 20 yrs by abusing process of law.
• In Puran Singh v. The State of Punjab, it was held that occupation by agent or servant does not amount to ownership of property.
• In Sham Lal Vs Rajinder Kumar, it was stated that to be in possession, it is not necessary that one must be in actual physical contact.
Respondent's contentions:
• Respondent did not claim any title for the suit property.
• The respondent has filed for injunction against the appellant.
Final judgement:
• In a prima facie case, the court has to analyse the documents on record and carefully examine the case & injunction is granted or refused on the balance of convenience on both the sides.
• Appeal is allowed and the respondent is granted three months to vacate the premise, possession to be handed over to the appellant.
• Respondent is ordered to pay Rs 1 lakh per month for use of premise for 3 months, rent for each month should be paid on or before the 10th of each month.
• If they are not willing to pay the rent, then they must vacate in 2 weeks, and if they are still not leaving, then the appellant can take police help.
• Respondent has to pay 50 thousand to the appellant.
