advocatemmmohan

My photo

ADVOCATEMMMOHAN -  Practicing both IN CIVIL, CRIMINAL AND FAMILY LAWS,Etc.,

WELCOME TO LEGAL WORLD

WELCOME TO MY LEGAL WORLD - FOR KNOWLEDGE IN LAW & FOR LEGAL OPINIONS - SHARE THIS

Thursday, August 14, 2014

Writ - Civil Suit by Auction Purchaser - Inter pleader suit by Tenant against the owner who purchased the property under court auction sale and also Union of India who claims to be owner under a Grant - who are entitled for rents is the question to be decided - High court held that since there are complicated issues writ not maintainable - with out evicting the auction purchaser due to process of law - Union of India not entitled for any rent from inter pleader suit plaintiff/ tenant and dismissed the writ and decreed the inter pleader suit in second appeal - Apex court held that The subject matter of the inter-pleader suit and the proceedings arising therefrom clearly pertains to the entitlement of the presently contesting parties to receive rent in respect of the property in question. The subject matter of the two proceedings i.e. inter-pleader suit and the appeals arising therefrom and the writ petitions filed by the appellant are, therefore, not directly and substantially the same so as to attract the principle of res judicata enshrined in Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. the High Court had dismissed the Writ Petitions leaving it open for the appellant to avail the remedy of civil suit to get the title to the property adjudicated by a competent civil court, no fault, muchless any infirmity, can be found so as to warrant our interference. Accordingly, the civil appeal will have to be dismissed which we hereby do.The stand of the cantonment authority in the Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.175 of 1969, noted by us, is based on the terms of the old grant issued by the Governor General in Council on 12.09.1836. The legal effect of the terms of the said grant has been dealt with by this Court in Chief Executive Officer Vs. Surendra Kumar Vakil & Ors.[1]and Union of India & Ors. Vs. Kamla Verma[2] and have been understood to be conveying a lease of the building standing on the cantonment land with the power of resumption in the cantonment authority subject to payment of compensation for the cost of the building and not as a lease of the land itself. The above position has been emphasised for being kept in mind while dealing with all possible future litigations concerning the property in question without, of course, expressing any opinion on the merits of the claims/contention of any of the parties.= CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2147 OF 2006 PURSHOTTAM DAS TANDON DEAD BY LRS. … APPELLANT (S) VERSUS MILITARY ESTATE OFFICER & ORS. …RESPONDENT (S) = 2014- Aug. Part – http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41825

Writ  - Civil Suit by Auction Purchaser - Inter pleader suit by Tenant against the owner who purchased the property under court auction sale and also Union of India who claims to be owner under a Grant  - who are entitled for rents is the question to be decided - High court held that since there are complicated issues writ not maintainable - with out evicting the auction purchaser due to process of law - Union of India not entitled for any rent from inter pleader suit plaintiff/ tenant and dismissed the writ and decreed the inter pleader suit in second appeal - Apex court held that The  subject  matter  of the  inter-pleader  suit  and  the  proceedings  arising  therefrom  clearly pertains to the entitlement of the presently contesting parties  to  receive
rent in respect of the property in question. The subject matter of the two proceedings i.e. inter-pleader suit  and  the appeals arising therefrom and the writ  petitions  filed  by  the  appellant
are, therefore, not directly and substantially the same  so  as  to  attract the principle of res judicata enshrined in Section 11 of the Code  of  Civil Procedure.  the High Court had  dismissed  the Writ Petitions leaving it open for the appellant  to  avail  the  remedy  of civil suit to get the title to  the  property  adjudicated  by  a  competent civil court, no fault, muchless  any  infirmity,  can  be  found  so  as  to warrant our interference.  Accordingly, the civil appeal  will  have  to  be
dismissed which we hereby do.The stand of the cantonment authority in the Civil Misc.  Writ
Petition No.175 of 1969, noted by us, is based  on  the  terms  of  the  old grant issued by the Governor General in Council on  12.09.1836.   The  legal effect of the terms of the said grant has been dealt with by this  Court  in Chief Executive Officer Vs. Surendra  Kumar  Vakil  &  Ors.[1]and  Union  of India & Ors. Vs. Kamla Verma[2] and have been understood to be  conveying  a
lease of the building standing on the cantonment  land  with  the  power  of resumption in the cantonment authority subject to  payment  of  compensation for the cost of the building and not as a lease of the land itself. The above position has been emphasised for being kept  in  mind  while
dealing with all possible future  litigations  concerning  the  property  in question without, of course, expressing any opinion on  the  merits  of  the claims/contention of any of the parties.=

The suit property  is  Bungalow  No.  29,  Chaitham  Lines,  Allahabad
covered by Survey No. 143, Old Cantonment, Allahabad.  There is  no  dispute
that late  Lala  Manohar  Lal  grandfather  of  the  present  appellant  had
purchased the said property for a sum of Rs. 2900/- in a Court auction  held
on 25.11.1848.  The auction sale was confirmed by the Court  on  27.12.1848.
The possession of  the  property  of  the  predecessors-in-interest  of  the
appellant and thereafter of the appellant is not in dispute.=

 The Union of India issued a  resumption  notice  dated  26.12.1968  in
respect of the property in question.  The appellant instituted  Civil  Misc.
Writ Petition No. 175 of 1969 before the  Allahabad  High  Court  contending
that the property was purchased by  his  predecessors-in-interest   and  had
fallen to his share in a family settlement.  The Union of  India  sought  to
resist the claim of the appellant by asserting that the land  on  which  the
property stood was the subject of old grant dated 12.09.1836 issued  by  the
Governor General in Council under which a right of resumption was vested  in
the Union.  It was further contended on behalf of the Union  of  India  that
under the clauses of the aforesaid grant it was  only   the  building  which
was conveyed to the predecessors of the appellant and the same could  always
be resumed subject to payment of compensation to be assessed on the cost  of
the building.  It appears that the Union of India had  also  asserted  that,
in any event, under the terms of  the  old  grant  title  to  the  land  had
remained with the Union and  was  not  and  in  fact  could  not  have  been
transferred to the predecessors-in-interest of the appellant.=
 Around this time the appellant instituted Civil Suit No. 147  of  1971
in the Court of the Additional District Judge,  Allahabad  seeking  eviction
of Allahabad Polytechnic and Harijan Sewak Sangh who were  the  tenants  and
sub-tenants in the property.  The Union of  India  served  notice  upon  the
aforesaid two occupants of the property demanding rent claiming  to  be  the
owner thereof.  Allahabad Polytechnic,  therefore,  filed  an  inter-pleader
suit No. 161 of 1973 in the Court of the Civil Judge,  Allahabad  impleading
the appellant and the Union of India as Defendants 1 and 2 in the suit.   In
the said suit it was prayed that the defendants may inter-plead so that  the
right to collect rent of the property in dispute could  be  determined.   In
Second Appeal No.2866 arising out of the aforesaid suit, the decree  of  the
learned trial court that the appellant  and  not  the  Union  of  India  was
entitled to receive rent was  affirmed.   The  said  decree  was,  in  turn,
affirmed by this Court on 22.02.1984  by  dismissal  of  the  special  leave
petition filed by the Union of India.=
     A reading of the judgment dated 27.11.1981  passed  in  Second  Appeal
No. 2866 of 1978 clearly indicates that while deciding  on  the  entitlement
of the appellant to receive rent in respect of the property the  High  Court
had held that without taking recourse to  legal  proceedings  to  evict  the
appellants from the  property,  the  Union  of  India  could  not  have  the
demanded rent in respect thereof.
 In fact, in the aforesaid judgment  dated
27.11.1981 passed in Second Appeal No.2866 of 1978 it was  clearly  observed
that :

“The Union of India should first have taken  proceedings  for  ejectment  of
the appellant and then alone after success  in  the  ejectment  suit  should
have been a demand for rent and without that the appellant’s right  to  rent
could not be disturbed.  This also leads to the conclusion that  it  is  the
appellant to whom the rent is payable by the  Allahabad  Polytechnic  unless
the appellant is evicted by due process of law.”

14.   From the above, it is abundantly clear that the  issue  of  title  was
kept open in the proceedings of the Second Appeal.  The  subject  matter  of
the  inter-pleader  suit  and  the  proceedings  arising  therefrom  clearly
pertains to the entitlement of the presently contesting parties  to  receive
rent in respect of the property in question.  On  the  other  hand,  in  the
writ petitions, the appellant, claiming ownership, had sought  mutation,  as
a owner, in  the  cantonment  records  and  also  the  permission  to  raise
construction, a right flowing from the incidence of ownership of  the  land.
 The subject matter of the two proceedings i.e. inter-pleader suit  and  the
appeals arising therefrom and the writ  petitions  filed  by  the  appellant
are, therefore, not directly and substantially the same  so  as  to  attract
the principle of res judicata enshrined in Section 11 of the Code  of  Civil
Procedure.  Certainty of the above principle would not require us  to  trace
the elaborate case law readily available on the subject.

15.   Having regard to the nature of the dispute and the highly  contentious
issue raised, if in view of the earlier order  dated  06.07.1970  passed  in
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.175 of 1969, the High Court had  dismissed  the
Writ Petitions leaving it open for the appellant  to  avail  the  remedy  of
civil suit to get the title to  the  property  adjudicated  by  a  competent
civil court, no fault, muchless  any  infirmity,  can  be  found  so  as  to
warrant our interference.  Accordingly, the civil appeal  will  have  to  be
dismissed which we hereby do.

16.   Before parting, we deem  it  necessary  to  mention  that  though  the
litigation between the parties in the present case has  been  going  on  for
nearly five decades there is some lack of clarity whether  it  is  title  to
Bungalow No.29, Chaitham Lines, Allahabad or is it title to  the  land  over
which the said property is located that has  been  the  bone  of  contention
between the parties over this great expanse of time.  Though the  resumption
notice dated 26.12.1968 leading to Civil Misc.  Writ  Petition  No.  175  of
1969 was in respect of the bungalow, the subsequent claim of the  appellants
seem to be to the land itself in view of the reliefs  sought  in  the  Civil
Misc. Writ Petition  No.  13353  of  1992  and  Civil  Misc.  Writ  Petition
No.28558 of 2002.  The same, as noticed, were instituted after rejection  of
the appellant’s claims made in the application/representations filed  before
the cantonment authority for reliefs that were based on claims of  ownership
of the land.  The stand of the cantonment authority in the Civil Misc.  Writ
Petition No.175 of 1969, noted by us, is based  on  the  terms  of  the  old
grant issued by the Governor General in Council on  12.09.1836.   The  legal
effect of the terms of the said grant has been dealt with by this  Court  in
Chief Executive Officer Vs. Surendra  Kumar  Vakil  &  Ors.[1]and  Union  of
India & Ors. Vs. Kamla Verma[2] and have been understood to be  conveying  a
lease of the building standing on the cantonment  land  with  the  power  of
resumption in the cantonment authority subject to  payment  of  compensation
for the cost of the building and not as a lease of the land itself.

17.   The above position has been emphasised for being kept  in  mind  while
dealing with all possible future  litigations  concerning  the  property  in
question without, of course, expressing any opinion on  the  merits  of  the
claims/contention of any of the parties.

2014- Aug. Part – http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41825

RANJAN GOGOI, M.Y. EQBAL
                             REPORTABLE

                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

                        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                        CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2147 OF 2006


PURSHOTTAM DAS TANDON DEAD BY
LRS.                                             … APPELLANT (S)

                      VERSUS

MILITARY ESTATE OFFICER & ORS.     …RESPONDENT (S)



                               J U D G M E N T



RANJAN GOGOI, J.

1.    The challenge in  this  appeal  is  against  the  common  order  dated
27.05.2005 passed by the High Court of  Judicature  at  Allahabad  in  Civil
Misc. Writ Petition No. 13353 of 1992 and  Civil  Misc.  Writ  Petition  No.
28558 of 2002.  The High Court, by the impugned order,  has  dismissed  both
the writ petitions filed by the appellant and  has  further  held  that  the
entitlement of the appellant to the reliefs claimed therein will have to  be
adjudicated in a suit for declaration of title.

2.    The elaborate facts will  necessarily  have  to  be  recited  for  the
purposes of bringing out the controversy involved and also to embark upon  a
scrutiny of the correctness of the  impugned  conclusions  recorded  by  the
High Court in the order under challenge.

3.    The suit property  is  Bungalow  No.  29,  Chaitham  Lines,  Allahabad
covered by Survey No. 143, Old Cantonment, Allahabad.  There is  no  dispute
that late  Lala  Manohar  Lal  grandfather  of  the  present  appellant  had
purchased the said property for a sum of Rs. 2900/- in a Court auction  held
on 25.11.1848.  The auction sale was confirmed by the Court  on  27.12.1848.
The possession of  the  property  of  the  predecessors-in-interest  of  the
appellant and thereafter of the appellant is not in dispute.

4.    The Union of India issued a  resumption  notice  dated  26.12.1968  in
respect of the property in question.  The appellant instituted  Civil  Misc.
Writ Petition No. 175 of 1969 before the  Allahabad  High  Court  contending
that the property was purchased by  his  predecessors-in-interest   and  had
fallen to his share in a family settlement.  The Union of  India  sought  to
resist the claim of the appellant by asserting that the land  on  which  the
property stood was the subject of old grant dated 12.09.1836 issued  by  the
Governor General in Council under which a right of resumption was vested  in
the Union.  It was further contended on behalf of the Union  of  India  that
under the clauses of the aforesaid grant it was  only   the  building  which
was conveyed to the predecessors of the appellant and the same could  always
be resumed subject to payment of compensation to be assessed on the cost  of
the building.  It appears that the Union of India had  also  asserted  that,
in any event, under the terms of  the  old  grant  title  to  the  land  had
remained with the Union and  was  not  and  in  fact  could  not  have  been
transferred to the predecessors-in-interest of the appellant.

5.    The writ petition was disposed of  by  the  Allahabad  High  Court  on
06.07.1970 by holding that as highly disputed questions of fact relating  to
title had arisen such issues would not be appropriate  for  adjudication  in
the exercise  of  the  writ  jurisdiction.   The  parties,  therefore,  were
relegated to the remedy of a civil suit.  However, in  the  said  proceeding
an undertaking was made on behalf of the Union of India that  the  appellant
would not be evicted from the property except in accordance with law.

6.    Around this time the appellant instituted Civil Suit No. 147  of  1971
in the Court of the Additional District Judge,  Allahabad  seeking  eviction
of Allahabad Polytechnic and Harijan Sewak Sangh who were  the  tenants  and
sub-tenants in the property.  The Union of  India  served  notice  upon  the
aforesaid two occupants of the property demanding rent claiming  to  be  the
owner thereof.  Allahabad Polytechnic,  therefore,  filed  an  inter-pleader
suit No. 161 of 1973 in the Court of the Civil Judge,  Allahabad  impleading
the appellant and the Union of India as Defendants 1 and 2 in the suit.   In
the said suit it was prayed that the defendants may inter-plead so that  the
right to collect rent of the property in dispute could  be  determined.   In
Second Appeal No.2866 arising out of the aforesaid suit, the decree  of  the
learned trial court that the appellant  and  not  the  Union  of  India  was
entitled to receive rent was  affirmed.   The  said  decree  was,  in  turn,
affirmed by this Court on 22.02.1984  by  dismissal  of  the  special  leave
petition filed by the Union of India.

7.    It appears that on the strength of the aforesaid order passed by  this
Court the appellant moved an application before  the  Executive  Officer  of
the Cantonment Board, Allahabad, for mutation of his name in respect of  the
property in question and for permission to deposit  the  property  tax  etc.
The aforesaid application was filed on the claim that the appellant  is  the
owner of the property.  It also appears that  the  appellant  had  filed  an
application dated 08.04.1977 seeking exemption  of  excess  land  under  the
provisions of the U.P. Urban Land Holding Ceiling Act, 1932  on  the  ground
that he intended to raise  accommodation  thereon  for  economically  weaker
sections.  What happened thereafter is not  very  relevant  except  that  on
21.04.1992 Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 13353 of  1992  was  filed  by  the
appellant for “issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to  mutate
the name of the petitioners as owners of Bungalow  No.  29  Chaitham  Lines,
Allahabad and also  to  accept  the  property  tax.”    The  aforesaid  writ
petition was dismissed  on  07.01.2000  by  holding  that  in  view  of  the
judgment dated 6.7.1970 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 175 of  1969
which was binding on the  parties  the  dispute  required  resolution  in  a
regular civil suit which could be filed by either of the  parties  in  terms
of the judgment of the  High  Court  dated  06.07.1970.   The  issue  as  to
whether the judgment of the High Court in Second Appeal  No.  2866  of  1978
arising out of the inter-pleader suit would operate as  a  res  judicata  on
the question of title to the property was not decided  by  the  High  Court.
The aforesaid judgment and order of the High Court dated 07.01.2000 was  the
subject matter of challenge before this Court in Civil Appeal  No.  7284  of
2001 at the instance of the appellant.

8.    It appears that the appellant had also  filed  an  application  before
the competent authority under Section 181 of the Cantonment  Act,  1924  for
sanction of plans for raising further additional construction on  the  land.
The said application was rejected on 14.03.2002.   The  order  of  rejection
available in the original records of the case indicates that  the  rejection
was made in view of the  resumption  order  dated  26.12.1968  and  also  on
account of objections  of  the  cantonment  authority  with  regard  to  the
ownership of the appellant to  the  land.  Aggrieved,  the  appellant  filed
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 28558 of 2002.   In  the  said  writ  petition
while the appellant asserted his ownership of the property i.e. Bungalow  as
well as the appurtenant land the  Union  of  India  denied  such  ownership.
The High Court of Allahabad by its order dated 05.03.2003  disposed  of  the
writ petition by requiring the appeal filed by the appellant  under  Section
274 of the Cantonment Act against the order of  rejection  dated  14.03.2002
which was pending, to be disposed  of.   However,  the  High  Court  in  its
aforesaid order  dated  05.03.2003  recorded  findings/observations  to  the
effect that in Second Appeal No. 2866 of 1978, arising  out  of  the  inter-
pleader suit, the property in dispute has already  been  held  by  the  High
Court to be belonging to the  appellant  and  that  the  said  decision  was
upheld by this Court on 22.02.1984.   On  the  said  basis  the  High  Court
recorded its conclusion that the question  of  title  to  the  property  had
become res judicata and cannot be raked up again.

9.    The aforesaid judgment dated 05.03.2003  was  challenged  before  this
Court by the Cantonment Board in Civil Appeal No. 6637 of  2003.   Both  the
appeals were disposed of by  this  Court  on  19.12.2003  by  remanding  the
matter to the High court in view of the apparent inconsistency  in  the  two
orders of the High  Court  on  the  issue  of  res  judicata.   The  present
impugned order dated 27.05.2005 of the High Court has been  passed  pursuant
to the aforesaid remand made by this court by its order dated 19.12.2003.

10.   We have  heard  Shri  S.R.  Singh,  learned  senior  counsel  for  the
appellant and Shri R.S. Suri, learned senior counsel for the respondents.

11.   The High Court, by the impugned order, has taken  the  view  that  the
judgment and decree passed in the inter-pleader suit holding  the  appellant
to be entitled to receive the rent in respect  of  the  property  would  not
operate as a res judicata so as to confer  any  finality  to  the  issue  of
title in respect of the  property.   Thereafter,  taking  into  account  the
judgment dated 06.07.1970 rendered by the High Court  in  Civil  Misc.  Writ
Petition No. 175 of 1969, the High Court left the parties  with  the  option
of moving the civil court for adjudication of title.  Accordingly, the  writ
petitions were dismissed.

12.   The aforesaid conclusion of the High  Court  appear  to  be  based  on
three principal grounds.  Firstly, the High Court held that  the  decree  in
the proceedings arising out of the inter-pleader suit as  affirmed  by  this
Court merely decided the entitlement of the appellant  to  receive  rent  in
respect of the property and in fact the question of title  to  the  property
was neither in issue in the said proceedings nor was the same  decided.   In
this regard the  High  Court  specifically  noticed  that  in  the  judgment
rendered in  the  Second  Appeal  No.  2866  of  1978  the  High  Court  had
specifically recognized the right of the Union of India to  take  out  legal
proceedings for eviction of the appellant thereby  clearly  indicating  that
the issue of title was  not  conclusively  determined  in  the  said  inter-
pleader suit and the  proceedings  arising  therefrom.   Alternatively,  the
High Court held that if the said decree  is  to  be  understood  as  one  of
determination  of  title  to  the  property  the  same  would   be   without
jurisdiction as a decree declaring title in an inter-pleader suit  filed  by
a tenant is barred under the provisions of Order XXXV Rule 5 of the Code  of
Civil Procedure.

13.   A reading of the judgment dated 27.11.1981  passed  in  Second  Appeal
No. 2866 of 1978 clearly indicates that while deciding  on  the  entitlement
of the appellant to receive rent in respect of the property the  High  Court
had held that without taking recourse to  legal  proceedings  to  evict  the
appellants from the  property,  the  Union  of  India  could  not  have  the
demanded rent in respect thereof.  In fact, in the aforesaid judgment  dated
27.11.1981 passed in Second Appeal No.2866 of 1978 it was  clearly  observed
that :

“The Union of India should first have taken  proceedings  for  ejectment  of
the appellant and then alone after success  in  the  ejectment  suit  should
have been a demand for rent and without that the appellant’s right  to  rent
could not be disturbed.  This also leads to the conclusion that  it  is  the
appellant to whom the rent is payable by the  Allahabad  Polytechnic  unless
the appellant is evicted by due process of law.”

14.   From the above, it is abundantly clear that the  issue  of  title  was
kept open in the proceedings of the Second Appeal.  The  subject  matter  of
the  inter-pleader  suit  and  the  proceedings  arising  therefrom  clearly
pertains to the entitlement of the presently contesting parties  to  receive
rent in respect of the property in question.  On  the  other  hand,  in  the
writ petitions, the appellant, claiming ownership, had sought  mutation,  as
a owner, in  the  cantonment  records  and  also  the  permission  to  raise
construction, a right flowing from the incidence of ownership of  the  land.
 The subject matter of the two proceedings i.e. inter-pleader suit  and  the
appeals arising therefrom and the writ  petitions  filed  by  the  appellant
are, therefore, not directly and substantially the same  so  as  to  attract
the principle of res judicata enshrined in Section 11 of the Code  of  Civil
Procedure.  Certainty of the above principle would not require us  to  trace
the elaborate case law readily available on the subject.

15.   Having regard to the nature of the dispute and the highly  contentious
issue raised, if in view of the earlier order  dated  06.07.1970  passed  in
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.175 of 1969, the High Court had  dismissed  the
Writ Petitions leaving it open for the appellant  to  avail  the  remedy  of
civil suit to get the title to  the  property  adjudicated  by  a  competent
civil court, no fault, muchless  any  infirmity,  can  be  found  so  as  to
warrant our interference.  Accordingly, the civil appeal  will  have  to  be
dismissed which we hereby do.

16.   Before parting, we deem  it  necessary  to  mention  that  though  the
litigation between the parties in the present case has  been  going  on  for
nearly five decades there is some lack of clarity whether  it  is  title  to
Bungalow No.29, Chaitham Lines, Allahabad or is it title to  the  land  over
which the said property is located that has  been  the  bone  of  contention
between the parties over this great expanse of time.  Though the  resumption
notice dated 26.12.1968 leading to Civil Misc.  Writ  Petition  No.  175  of
1969 was in respect of the bungalow, the subsequent claim of the  appellants
seem to be to the land itself in view of the reliefs  sought  in  the  Civil
Misc. Writ Petition  No.  13353  of  1992  and  Civil  Misc.  Writ  Petition
No.28558 of 2002.  The same, as noticed, were instituted after rejection  of
the appellant’s claims made in the application/representations filed  before
the cantonment authority for reliefs that were based on claims of  ownership
of the land.  The stand of the cantonment authority in the Civil Misc.  Writ
Petition No.175 of 1969, noted by us, is based  on  the  terms  of  the  old
grant issued by the Governor General in Council on  12.09.1836.   The  legal
effect of the terms of the said grant has been dealt with by this  Court  in
Chief Executive Officer Vs. Surendra  Kumar  Vakil  &  Ors.[1]and  Union  of
India & Ors. Vs. Kamla Verma[2] and have been understood to be  conveying  a
lease of the building standing on the cantonment  land  with  the  power  of
resumption in the cantonment authority subject to  payment  of  compensation
for the cost of the building and not as a lease of the land itself.

17.   The above position has been emphasised for being kept  in  mind  while
dealing with all possible future  litigations  concerning  the  property  in
question without, of course, expressing any opinion on  the  merits  of  the
claims/contention of any of the parties.

                        ....………….…………………J.
                                                    [RANJAN GOGOI]


                                                          …………....……………………J.
                                                    [M. Y. EQBAL]
NEW DELHI,
AUGUST 13, 2014.

-----------------------
[1]    (1999) 3 SCC 555
[2]    (2010) 13 SCC 511

-----------------------
12


No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.