Allowed

Prashan Singh & Ors. v. Ymca New Delhi

Delhi HC7 Nov 2016RSA/332/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Delhi allowed exemption in an exemption petition. It condoned a 14-day delay in re-filing the appeal. Regarding the main civil appeal regarding possession, since the appeal against dismissal was not pressed on merits but the appellant sought time to vacate due to children's studies, the court granted time to vacate on or before 30.04.2017 subject to filing an undertaking to hand

What did the court decide?

Exemption allowed subject to exceptions. Delay of 14 days in re-filing appeal condoned. Appellants granted time to vacate suit premises on or before 30.04.2017, subject to undertaking to hand over vac

Prashan Singh & Ors. Vs Ymca New Delhi — Property and Title | Delhi HC (2016)

¶1

$~27

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- RSA 332/2016

¶4

PRASHAN SINGH & ORS ..... Appellants Through: Mr. D.K. Sharma, Advocate.

¶5

versus

¶6

YMCA NEW DELHI ..... Respondent

¶7

Through

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J. MEHTA O R D E R % 07.11.2016

¶9

C.M. No.41326/2016 (exemption)

¶10

Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions.

¶11

C.M. stands disposed of.

¶12

C.M. No.41327/2016 (for condonation of delay of 14 days in re-filing)

¶13

For the reasons stated in the application, delay of 14 days in refiling the appeal is condoned.

¶14

C.M. stands disposed of.

¶15

+ RSA No.332/2016 and C.M. No.41325/2016 (stay)

¶16

Learned counsel for the appellants argues with respect to

¶17

dismissal of the suit of the respondent/plaintiff for possession on the ground

¶18

RSA No.332/2016

¶19

page 1 of 3

¶20

of adverse possession of the appellants, tenancy of the appellants and respondent/plaintiff not being the owner.

¶21

So far as adverse possession is concerned, not a single document has been filed with respect to the claim of adverse possession and thus it has been held by the courts below to be not proved with the fact that plea of tenancy is mutually destructive with the plea of ownership, and which plea of tenancy was also not proved by a single document. Respondent/plaintiff has a registered lease deed in its favour and only its name had changed, and therefore, even the ownership of the suit premises cannot be denied.

¶22

At this stage, counsel for the appellants states that appeal is not pressed on merits but appellants be granted time till 30.4.2017 to vacate the suit premises as the children of the appellants are said to be studying and the academic year will finish by 31.3.2017.

¶23

Accordingly, while disposing of this appeal as not pressed, appellants are granted time to vacate the suit premises on or before 30.4.2017 subject to the appellants filing an undertaking in this Court within two weeks to hand over actual vacant physical possession of the suit

¶24

RSA No.332/2016

¶25

page 2 of 3

¶26

premises to the respondent/plaintiff and for the period of possession to pay all charges for electricity, water etc. Subject to the appellants filing affidavits of undertakings in terms of the present order and complying with the terms of the same, appellants are granted time to vacate the suit premises on or before 30.4.2017.

¶27

Appeal is disposed of in terms of aforesaid observations.

¶28

Dasti to the counsel for the appellants.

¶29

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J

¶30

NOVEMBER 07, 2016 Ne

¶31

page 3 of 3

¶32

RSA No.332/2016

Prashan Singh & Ors. v. Ymca New Delhi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prashan Singh & Ors. v. Ymca New Delhi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Banwari Lal (D) by L.R'S & Anr. Vs Balbir Singh

Ndmc Vs Amrit Mehra and Ors.

Satya Pal Vs Delhi Development Authority

Anuj Tyagi & Ors. Vs Ashok Kumar & Ors.

Zinda Singh Vs Sunil Kumar & Anr.

Jamil Ahmed Vs Shanti Devi