CASE TITLE
GHANSHYAM VS YOGENDRA RATHI
BENCH
HON’BLE JUSTICE MR. PANKAJ MITHAL
PARTIES
APPELLANT – GHANSHYAM
RESPONDENT- YOGENDRA RATHI
DATE OF ORDER
02ND JUNE, 2023
FACTS OF THE CASE
- The defendant (herein appellant) has preferred the present appeal before the apex court of India.
- The case originates from the eviction suit filed by the plaintiff (herein respondent). The suit was for mesne profits as well on the averment that the respondent is the owner of the house in accordance with the agreement dated 10.04.2002.
- The agreement states power of attorney, memo of possession and a receipt of payment of sale as well as will of the defendant-appellant bequeathed in favour of the respondent-plaintiff.
- The defendant-appellant requested plaintiff-respondent to allow him to occupy ground floor and one room on the first floor for three months as licensee. But he failed to vacate even after expiry of the period.
- The trial court held that the plaintiff-respondent had the right over the property and he is entitled to a decree of eviction and mesne profits.
- The High Court while examining the appeal filed by defendant-appellant found that there was no substantial question of law involved and upheld the decision of the trial court.
OBSERVATIONS OF THE COURT
- The apex court, in light of facts and circumstances of the present case, held that the appeals lack merit and thereby dismissed the appeals.
- Court observed that there is no evidence to prove that the documents mentioned were obtained by the plaintiff-respondent through misrepresentation, manipulation or fraud.
- The court held that agreement to sell, payment of sale and receipt of sale consideration and possession of memo which on record proves that the plaintiff-respondent has the possessory rights over the property.
- Court held that the defendant-appellant has no right to disturb the possessory rights of the plaintiff-respondent.
- Court observed that although an agreement to sale is not regarded as an transaction of sale transferring proprietary rights in an immovable property but if the purchaser performs his part of the contract lawfully then he will be protected under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Acts,1882.
CONCLUSION
In the above case, apex court concluded that since the plaintiff-respondent performed his part of contract lawfully and the defendant-appellant through agreement transferred possession of the property thus the defendant-appellant ceased to hold the possession.
