Dismissed

Ramesh Kumar v. Darshan Singh

Punjab & Haryana HC5 Mar 2012RSA/1042/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a second appeal challenging a decree for recovery of rent, the Court examined whether an unregistered sale deed created landlord-tenant relations. The Court held that even without registered title, possession and payment consideration created an interest sufficient to maintain the suit, dismissing the appeal.

What did the court decide?

The second appeal was dismissed; findings and decree of courts below were upheld.

Ramesh Kumar Vs Darshan Singh — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

-1-

¶2

RSA No.1042 of 2012 (O&M)

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

RSA No.1042 of 2012 (O&M) Date of decision:05.03.2012

Ramesh Kumar

......Appellant

Vs.

Darshan Singh

...Respondent

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA.

¶11

Present: Mr. Sukhdeep Parmar, Advocate for the appellant.

¶12

¶13

Tejinder Singh Dhindsa, J.

¶14

The defendant/appellant is in second appeal before this Court against the judgment and decree dated 06.12.2011 passed by the first appellate Court whereby, the findings of the trial Court decreeing the suit for recovery filed by the plaintiff/respondent have been affirmed.

¶15

Plaintiff filed a suit for recovery for a sum of Rs.1,16,000/- as rent in respect of property bearing No.14/620 situated in Anand Nagar within a Municipal Limits of Sonepat. It was pleaded that the suit property was purchased by the plaintiff from the defendant on 24.03.2001 and the total sale consideration of Rs.3,50,000/- had been paid. The defendant had executed an agreement to sell, a receipt for full and final payment, a possession letter and had also executed an irrevocable general power of attorney, special power of attorney and affidavit in favour of the plaintiff. The suit property was rented out to defendant on 18.05.2001 at a monthly rent of Rs.4000/-. The rent so agreed was paid up to June, 2002 and

¶16

RSA No.1042 of 2012 (O&M)

¶17

-2-

¶18

thereafter, the defendant had stopped making the payment. Inspite of repeated reminders as also service of legal notice, the defendant had failed to tender the arrears of rent due and hence the suit for recovery had been filed.

¶19

The defendant contested the suit by stating that it is actually Usha Rani widow of Ram Chander, who is the owner of the property. As defendant had no title in the suit property, he could not have passed any title further in favour of the plaintiff. Defendant took a plea that the plaintiff had advanced a loan of Rs.1,00,000/- to the defendant. It was only towards protection of his interest that the plaintiff in connivance with the scribe and attesting witnesses had prepared the alleged agreement to sell, general power of attorney, special power of attorney etc. The relationship of landlord and tenant was also denied.

¶20

Upon the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues:

¶21

Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.1,16,000/- from the defendant with costs and interest as prayed for? OPP

¶22

Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form nor the plaintiff has any locus standi to file the same? OPD

¶23

Relief.

¶24

The trial Court after having heard respective counsels and having scanned the evidence led on record, decreed the suit and held the plaintiff entitled to recover a sum of Rs. 1,16,000/- from the defendant along with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till

¶25

RSA No.1042 of 2012 (O&M)

¶26

-3-

¶27

the date of realisation of the decreetal amount. The civil appeal preferred by the defendant/appellant has been dismissed vide impugned judgment dated 06.12.2011 passed by the first appellate Court. It is against such background that the defendant/appellant is in second appeal before this Court.

¶28

I have heard Mr. Sukhdeep Parmar, Advocate for the appellant

¶29

at length.

¶30

Learned counsel would vehemently argue that the appellant himself having no title in the suit property, could not have transferred any title in favour of the plaintiff/respondent and as such a suit for recovery towards arrears of rent in respect of such property could not have been decreed.

¶31

I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel and having perused the case file. I find that the present second appeal must fail for the reasons recorded hereinbelow.

¶32

Usha Rani executed power of attorney, Exhibit P-1 in favour of the defendant/appellant, as regards the suit property. She had given authorization to sell or transfer the suit property to any one, as also to enter into an agreement to sell to any intending purchaser and to receive consideration amount. Exhibit P-2 is the document vide which the defendant authorized the plaintiff to transfer the suit property by way of sale, gift, mortgage, lease etc. Defendant/appellant also executed an affidavit regarding delivering vacant possession of the suit property to the plaintiff/respondent. This was in pursuance to an agreement to sell dated 24.03.2001, Exhibit P-6 entered into between the parties. The defendant, DW-1 admitted his signatures on all the documents referred to hereinabove.

¶33

Even though, the documents as detailed hereinabove have been

¶34

RSA No.1042 of 2012 (O&M)

¶35

-4-

¶36

proved on record yet such documents would not transfer the title or ownership of the suit property in favour of the plaintiff/respondent. As per Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, sale of immoveable property of the value of one hundred rupees or more can be made only by way of a registered instrument. As such even though, the plaintiff/respondent had not acquired the ownership right on the suit property as the registered sale deed has not been executed in his favour, it can not be said that he had no interest in the property in question. The plaintiff/respondent had been put into possession in the suit property as the prospective vendee by the defendant/appellant upon receiving the entire sale consideration and as such an interest in the suit property had certainly been created. Accordingly, it would be inequitable in the facts of the present case for the defendant/appellant to contend that a suit for recovery would not be maintainable towards arrears of rent at the hands of the plaintiff/respondent who is not the owner of the suit property. The Courts would need to balance the equities and accordingly, would not permit the defendant/appellant in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case to take advantage of mere technicalities to recover arrears of rent in the light of the facts of the present case. It would not be necessary for the plaintiff/respondent to be the owner of the building. The plaintiff/respondent would clearly be construed as a landlord in respect of the suit property in the context of a person being entitled to receive rent in respect of such building.

¶37

I find no patent infirmity or material irregularity in the findings and conclusions drawn by the Courts below. The same are based on due appreciation of evidence and proceed on valid and cogent reasoning.

¶38

RSA No.1042 of 2012 (O&M)

¶39

-5-

¶40

The present second appeal must fail as it does not raise any question of law much less substantial question of law for consideration.

¶41

Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed .

¶42

March 05, 2012 (TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA) harjeet JUDGE

¶43

Note: Whether to be reported? No

Ramesh Kumar v. Darshan Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramesh Kumar v. Darshan Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Buta Singh etc. Vs Surender Singh etc.

Buta Singh etc. Vs Kamla etc.

Buta Singh etc. Vs Manjit Singh etc.

Om Dhara and Ors. Vs Partap Singh and Ors.

Mall Singh Vs Gurbachan Singh

Gurcharan Singh @ Buta Singh Vs Ranjit Singh