Explore a recent court judgment involving a complex land dispute where the court’s legal analysis played a crucial role. The judgment highlighted the significance of accurately identifying the property in question and ensuring clear descriptions for execution purposes. With an emphasis on protecting decrees from being defeated, the court’s insights shed light on the legal complexities of property disputes. Stay tuned to uncover the legal intricacies of this case.
Facts
- The Appellant filed an application under Order 21 Rule 99 read with Section 151 of the CPC seeking appointment of a Local Commissioner to demarcate the area of the suit property which was wrongfully taken by the Respondent.
- A title suit was filed by the Respondent for recovery of possession of Plot 4/4 measuring 9700 sq. ft. situated at 4/4 Azadpur, G.T. Karnal Road, Delhi.
- The Appellant paid mesne profit as determined by the Court till September 30, 2014.
- The High Court of Delhi dismissed Execution First Appeals filed by the Appellant, leading to an appeal being made. The Appellant argued for the restoration of possession of Plot No. 4/5 from the Respondent.
- An application under Order 21 Rule 26 CPC for stay of proceedings for execution of the decree for mesne profits was filed by the Appellant but was dismissed.
- The Respondent was found liable to restore the possession of Plot No. 4/5 to the Appellant.
- The plaint specifically refers to property situated at 4/4, Azadpur, G.T. Road, Delhi admeasuring 9700 sq. ft.
- A judgment and decree dated November 21, 2013, is mentioned which was claimed to have errors.
- The Appellant operated retail outlets through M/s Azadpur Service Station and M/s Tej Service Station on different plots of land, with the latter being a subject of dispute.
- The cause of action in the suit is based on the expiry of the lease of Plot No.4/4 and the refusal of the Appellant to vacate it.
- A summary judgment application filed by the Respondent was dismissed on ground of limitation, related to eviction of the Appellant from the suit property.
- The Appellant was directed to remove certain installations from Plot No.4/4 despite the ongoing legal battle.
- Various applications and appeals were filed by both parties related to possession, demarcation, and mesne profits of the plots under dispute.
- The High Court partially allowed the Regular First Appeal RFA No.13 of 2019.
- The Court modified the impugned judgment and decree.
- Mensne profits were ordered to be payable from 1 March 2006 instead of July 2003.
- The tenancy of the Appellant was terminated by the Respondent’s legal notice dated 31 January 2006, with effect from 28 February 2006.
- The Respondent was granted mensne profit at the rate of Rs.50,000 per month from July 2003 until vacation of the suit property.
Also Read: Legal Analysis of Appeal Provisions in Admiralty and Commercial Court Cases
Arguments
- The Appellant argues that they are not liable to pay mesne profit post September, 2014.
- The Respondent is claiming mesne profits for the entire decretal area of 9700 sq. ft. after 15 September 2014, even though they have taken possession of a part of the land measuring 7076 sq. ft.
- Part of the area taken possession of by the Respondent (240 sq. ft.) belongs to the Land and Building Department, Delhi Administration.
- The Appellant’s representative argues that the decree of possession obtained by the Respondent should be carefully examined by the Executing Court to determine the exact description of the decretal property (Plot No 4/4, Azadpur, G.T. Road, Delhi) for execution purposes.
- It is suggested that a local Commissioner be appointed to ascertain the property details as per the law laid down by the court in the case Pratibha Singh v. Shanti Devi Prasad.
- The Decree Holder (Respondent) is claiming possession of Plot No.4/5 based on a handmade plan annexed to the plaint.
- Mr. Kalra emphasized the attachment of a site plan to the plaint, which is part of the decree confirmed by the Appellate Court.
- He argued that landmarks 4/4 and 4/5 are only landmarks as found by the lower courts, with no substantial question of law involved.
- Consequently, Mr. Kalra stated that the appeals should be rejected.
Also Read: Interpretation of Borrower and Pledgor in Loan Agreements
Analysis
- The Court emphasized the importance of properly identifying the property in a suit involving immovable property.
- It was noted that the decree can only be executed for suit property that is easily identifiable.
- The Court highlighted the necessity for a clear description of the decretal property for execution purposes.
- The judgment emphasized that the extent of the suit property should be determined by the Executing Court.
- It was pointed out that the decree should not be allowed to be defeated to the extent possible.
- The Delhi Government owns part of the land in question
- Appellant is paying revenue to the Delhi Government for the land
- This fact cannot be ignored by the Court
Also Read: Inherent Powers of NCLT in Insolvency Resolution Cases
Decision
- Any excess land taken possession of, whether Plot No. 4/5 or belonging to Delhi Government, to be restored to Appellant.
- Executing Court to decide Execution Applications afresh with observations in mind.
- Revenue Officer to be appointed as Local Commissioner to demarcate Plot No. 4/4 and give possession to Respondent.
- Mesne profits to be computed from 1st March 2006 till Appellant relinquishes possession, as per Trial Court decree modified by High Court.
- Appeals related to SLP (C) No.20718 of 2021 and SLP (C) No.20737 of 2021 allowed, impugned judgment and order set aside.
Case Title: HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. Vs. AJAY BHATIA (2022 INSC 1005)
Case Number: C.A. No.-006859-006859 / 2022
