Case Note & Summary
The case involves a civil suit for eviction and mesne profits filed by the plaintiff-respondent (Yogendra Rathi) against the defendant-appellant (Ghanshyam) concerning premises at H-768, J.J. Colony, Shakarpur, Delhi. The plaintiff claimed ownership based on an agreement to sell dated 10.04.2002, a power of attorney, a memo of possession, a receipt of sale consideration, and a will executed by the defendant. The plaintiff alleged that possession was handed over pursuant to the agreement, and later the defendant was allowed to occupy part of the premises as a licencee for three months. The defendant failed to vacate despite expiry of the licence period and a notice dated 18.02.2003. The defendant contested the suit, alleging that the documents were manipulated on blank papers, but did not dispute execution or payment of consideration. The trial court framed three issues: manipulation/fraud, right to eviction, and mesne profits. It found no evidence of fraud and decreed eviction and mesne profits at Rs.1000 per month. The first appellate court and the High Court in second appeal upheld the decree. The Supreme Court, hearing the appeal, noted that the defendant had lost in all three courts below. The Court observed that the defendant did not dispute execution of the documents or payment of consideration, and the concurrent findings of fact were not shown to be perverse or based on no evidence. Accordingly, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, finding no ground for interference.
Headnote
A) Property Law - Eviction - Licence - Agreement to Sell - The plaintiff-respondent sought eviction of the defendant-appellant based on an agreement to sell, power of attorney, and a will, claiming ownership and that the defendant was a licencee. The defendant alleged manipulation but failed to prove fraud. The trial court decreed eviction and mesne profits, which was upheld by the first appellate court and the High Court in second appeal. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that concurrent findings of fact cannot be interfered with unless perverse or based on no evidence. (Paras 1-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court was justified in dismissing the second appeal in view of concurrent findings of fact regarding the validity of the agreement to sell and the licence granted to the defendant-appellant.
Final Decision
Appeal dismissed. The Supreme Court upheld the concurrent findings of fact and the decree of eviction and mesne profits.
Law Points
- Concurrent findings of fact
- Licence
- Eviction
- Mesne profits
- Agreement to sell
- Power of attorney
- Will
