Dismissed

Om Parkash v. Siri Vaish Vayamshala Soc.

Punjab & Haryana HC14 Jan 2009RSA/2974/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this second appeal regarding possession of a house, the High Court dismissed the appellant's challenge. The lower courts held the society was the title holder and the appellant was a licensee who continued to occupy the property after employment cessation. The appellant's claims of adverse possession and purchase from the president were rejected as they had no support in evidence or prior plead

What the court decided

AI extract

Om Parkash Vs Siri Vaish Vayamshala Soc. — Property and Title | Punjab & Haryana HC (2009)

¶1

R.S.A. No. 2974 of 2008 (O&M)

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

R.S.A. No. 2974 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision: 14.1.2009

¶5

Om Parkash son of Kali Charan

¶6

....Appellant

¶7

Versus

¶8

Siri Vaish Vayamshala Society Regd., Rohtak

¶9

....Respondent

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA

¶11

Present: Mr. D.C. Dhaula, Advocate, for the appellant.

¶12

¶13

VINOD K. SHARMA, J (ORAL)

¶14

This regular second appeal is directed against the judgments and decrees dated 13.6.2005 and 10.4.2008 passed by the learned Courts below vide which the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent for mandatory injunction directing the appellant/defendant to hand over the possession of the house has been decreed.

¶15

The plaintiff-society claimed that appellant/defendant was employed as accountant with the society, after he ceased to be in employment, he failed to vacate the house allotted.

¶16

Notice of the suit was given.

¶17

The appellant/defendant took a stand that, in fact, the property in dispute belongs to the defendant and it was he, who has constructed the room himself and thereafter he demolished the room and raised the present construction as owner of the property.

¶18

He claimed ownership on the basis of adverse possession claiming that his possession was hostile to the true owner which has matured into ownership and alternative plea was also taken that after his removal from service, Tek Chand, President of the plaintiff-society

¶19

R.S.A. No. 2974 of 2008 (O&M)

¶20

-2-

¶21

had tried to interfere in his possession, therefore, he paid a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) towards the purchase money and thus has become owner of the property in dispute.

¶22

The learned trial Court held the plaintiff to be owner of the property in dispute, in view of the stand of appellant/defendant claiming title by way of adverse possession. The learned Court rightly held that the plea of adverse possession could be taken only against true owner. The learned Courts have recorded concurrent finding of fact, on appreciation of evidence, that the house was allotted by the plaintiff to the defendant/appellant for his residence being employee of the plaintiff as licencee.

¶23

The Court also held that the plaintiff being employer had given the house, as licencee, thus had locus standi to maintain the suit. The suit stands decreed.

¶24

In appeal findings have been affirmed.

¶25

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant contends that the judgment and decree passed by the learned Courts below cannot be sustained as the plaintiff/respondent was not owner of the property in dispute as the same was purchased by Banarsi Dass.

¶26

No such plea has been raised by appellant before the learned Courts below, rather a positive stand was taken by the defendant/appellant that a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) was paid to Tek Chand, President of the society, towards purchase price. The learned Courts below were right in holding that the president in his individual capacity could not have accepted part payment of sale consideration as claimed by the defendant/appellant.

¶27

R.S.A. No. 2974 of 2008 (O&M)

¶28

-3-

¶29

Learned counsel for the appellant thereafter contended that appellant was entitled to protection under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act (for short 'the Act').

¶30

This plea is also not available. As already observed above, Tek Chand was merely a President of the society whereas property in dispute under ownership was given by the society to the defendant/appellant being its employee. No valid agreement of sale has been set up to claim part performance to seek protection under Section 53-A of the Act.

¶31

Learned counsel for the appellant also contends that there was sale deed of exchange, giving title to the appellant.

¶32

Neither any document has been placed on record before the learned Courts below nor any reference was made by the defendant/appellant in support of this plea.

¶33

It is also pertinent to mention here that there was no pleading or evidence with regard to purchase by Banarsi Dass or the property being exchanged. No issue was framed. It is settled law that no evidence beyond pleading can be looked into. The pleas raised by appellant thus are misconceived.

¶34

The appeal does not raise any substantial question of law for consideration by this Court.

¶35

Dismissed.

¶36

(Vinod K. Sharma) Judge

¶37

January 14, 2009 R.S.

Om Parkash v. Siri Vaish Vayamshala Soc.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Om Parkash v. Siri Vaish Vayamshala Soc.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Madan Lal and Anr. Vs Ravi Setia and Ors.

Mitsui Kinzoku Components India Pvt. Ltd. Vs H.S.I.D.C. and Anr.

Gurdev Kaur Vs Inderjit Singh

Karnal Improvement Trust Karnal Vs Brij Mohan and Others

Nathu Ram Vs Ratni

State of Haryana Vs Shiv Kumar