0

The High Court of Karnataka Court Enforces Eviction, Penalizes Appellant Rs. 50,000 for Baseless Adverse Possession Argument

Blog, High Court of Karnataka , ,

Case Title – Chinnaswamy. K Vs. Theosophy Company (Mysore) Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number – Civil Revision Petition No. 483 of 2023 (SC)
Dated on – 9th May, 2024
Quorum – Justice N S Sanjay Gowda

FACTS OF THE CASE
In the case of Chinnaswamy. K Vs. Theosophy Company (Mysore) Pvt. Ltd.  the Appellant was employed by the Respondent-Company as a watchman. As a part of his employment benefits, the Appellant was provided with rent-free quarters by the company. The Appellant reached the age of superannuation on November 30, 2016. Despite his retirement, the Appellant refused to vacate the accommodation provided by the company. The Respondent-Company sent a legal notice to the Appellant, which was ignored. The Respondent-Company then instituted a suit for eviction (S.C. No. 1507/2017) against the Appellant. The Trial Court ruled in favour of the Respondent-Company on 8th of June, 2023, ordering the Appellant to vacate the property. The Appellant instituted a revision petition challenging the judgment.

ISSUES
The main issue of the case whirled around whether a jural relationship of ‘landlord and tenant’ existed between the Appellant and the Respondent-Company due to the provision of rent-free accommodation?
Whether the Appellant and his family had perfected their title to the suit schedule property through adverse possession?
Whether the Respondent-Company was a legitimate entity and the rightful owner of the suit property?

CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT
The Appellant, through their counsel, in the said case contented that the Respondent-Company was non-existent and that his family had acquired the title of the property through adverse possession.
The Appellant denied ever being employed by the Respondent-Company, asserting that he engaged in selling vegetables and gardening work.
It was asserted by the Appellants that the property belonged to BBMP (Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike) and that the fraudulent transactions involving one Ramaswamy Reddy had clouded the title.

CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT
The Respondent, through their counsel, in the said case furnished evidence of its existence, including Articles of Association, Memorandum of Association, Income Tax Returns, Bank Statements, a certificate of incorporation, and other relevant documents along-with a registered gift deed and khatha certificates showing the ownership of the suit property. 
The Respondent presented documents such as the Appointment Letters, Salary Registers, Bank Statements, and a Memorandum of Employment confirming the status of the Appellant as a employee and the provision of the Rent-free Accommodation.
Moreover, the Respondent refuted the claim of adverse possession by providing evidence of continuous ownership and employment-related occupancy of the Appellant.

COURT ANALYSIS AND JUDGMENT
The court in the case of Chinnaswamy. K Vs. Theosophy Company (Mysore) Pvt. Ltd, discovered that the Respondent-Company was a legitimate entity based on the documentary evidence provided and confirmed the ownership of the property through the registered gift deed and Khatha certificates. The court established that the Appellant was indeed an employee of the Respondent and was provided with Rent-free accommodation as part of his employment benefits. The court dismissed the claim of the Appellant for adverse possession, stating it unsupported by the evidence and deemed the eviction suit maintainable.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Judgement Reviewed by – Sruti Sikha Maharana
Click Here to View Judgment

0

Adverse Possession Unavailable for Tenant Against Landlord Due to Permissive Possession: Supreme Court

Blog , , ,

Case Title: Brij Narayan Shukla (D) Thr. Lrs. v. Sudesh Kumar Alias Suresh Kumar (D) Thr. Lrs. & Ors.

Case No.: Civil Appeal No. 7502 of 2012

Decided on: 3rd January, 2024

CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM NATH AND HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL

 Facts of the Case

The matter revolved around a disagreement concerning Plot No. 1019 in Village Hardoi, Uttar Pradesh. Brij Narayan Shukla, the appellant (now deceased), was represented by his legal heirs, who asserted ownership of the land. They relied on a sale deed dated January 21, 1966, obtained from the former Zamindar, Rai Bahadur Mohan Lal. The dispute escalated in 1975 when the appellant encountered opposition from the respondents while attempting construction. The respondents contested the ownership claim, arguing that they had acquired the land through adverse possession dating back to 1944. The appellant initiated legal proceedings by filing a suit seeking an injunction and relief for possession.

The appellant’s suit was rejected by the Allahabad High Court, citing the limitation ground. This decision was based on the respondent having solidified their rights through adverse possession, a status they maintained since the initiation of the first suit for arrears of rent.

Issue

The case involves a dispute over ownership and possession of Plot No. 1019 in Uttar Pradesh.

Legal Provision

Proceedings under section 145 of the Code of Criminal procedure, 1973, are for the purpose of preventing breach of peace. What the executive Magistrate is required to do is to find out who was in possession on the date or two months prior to the drawing of the preliminary order.

Court’s analysis and decision

The Supreme Court overturned a ruling by the Allahabad High Court, which had permitted a suit for claiming rights through adverse possession. The Supreme Court emphasized that ownership and possession of land cannot be established through permissive possession arising from tenancy. Furthermore, the court asserted that asserting adverse possession in this particular context was not a viable option. In a statement, a Division Bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Rajesh Bindal noted, “Even if we assume that the defendant respondents were in possession before 1944, their possession could not be deemed adverse, as they were tenants, and their tenancy would be considered permissible rather than adverse, even to the Zamindars.”

Disagreeing with the High Court’s conclusions and highlighting the lack of findings on limitation and adverse possession, the Supreme Court upheld the appellant’s ownership based on the 1966 sale deed. The Court dismissed the High Court’s rationale and, as a result, granted approval to the appeal.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written by- Afshan Ahmad

Click here to read the judgement