Last Updated on May 27, 2024 by Satish Mishra
In this post we will discuss about a classic case of degeneration of family values in which a brother tried to illegally take possession of his brother’s property.
Within six months of the date that their possession was taken, they may file a lawsuit. The property owner has the right to sue the unauthorised occupant under section 145 of the CrPC. The owner may use this section to file a complaint against the person occupying the property illegally by hiring a criminal attorney.
Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) of 1973 deals with the procedure for disputes over land or water that could lead to a breach of the peace. The purpose of this section is to prevent such breaches.
Adverse possession was defined by the Supreme Court in Amarendra Pratap Singh v Tej Bahadur Prajapati as: “A person, though having no right to enter into possession of the property of someone else, does so and continues in possession setting up title in himself and adversely to the title of the owner, commences.
You should create true caretaker contracts and prepare well-defined tenancy contracts. In simple terms, you must always clear the status and/ or duty of the occupant having possession of the property. You must not let any person retain the possession of your house for a long period of time from LawRato.
A Person who claims adverse possession should show: (a) On what date he came into possession, (b) What was the nature of his possession, (c) Whether the factum of possession was known to the other party. (d) How long his possession has continued, and (e) His possession was open and undisturbed.
Jagjeet Singh Bedi v. Daljeet Singh Bedi
NAME OF THE COURT- Ms. NeenaBansal Krishna, District and Sessions Judge ( South East), Saket Courts, New Delhi.
NAME OF THE PARTIES-
- Petitioners-
Jagjeet Singh Bedi
- Respondents-
Daljeet Singh Bedi
Date of Institution- 20th February, 2018
Date of Decision- 15th May, 2020
NAME OF THE PARTIES FOR THE COUNTER CLAIM
- Petitioners-
Daljeet Singh Bedi
- Respondents-
Jagjeet Singh Bedi
Date of Institution- 21st April, 2018
Date of Decision- 15th May, 2020
BRIEF STATEMENT OF FACTS-
In the present case, the petitioner Jagjeet Singh has filed a case for a mandatory injunction for the recovery of the possession as well as the recovery of damages. The suit is filed against his brother Daljeet Singh for being in permissive occupation of the suit property. The brother, Daljeet Singh has filed a counterclaim in which he has stated that he is the owner of the property by way of adverse possession.
According to factual evidence, the petitioner, Jagjeet Singh is the owner of the ground floor and the first floor of the property that is situated in Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi. He has purchased the same with a sale deed that was dated in the year 2004. The respondent, Daljeet Singh, who is the elder brother, had an independent and separate residential accommodation. He intended to reside with his younger brother that is the petitioner, therefore the petitioner allowed him to occupy the ground floor premises. The petitioner further agreed to bear all the expenses of the respondent’s family. The petitioner was all set to get married in the year 2013, and hence needed additional accommodation space, therefore, he instructed the respondent to vacate the property premises and shift to his older accommodation. The respondent did agree to vacate but he kept on delaying on one or the other pretext. The petitioner has a monthly salary of about Rs. 15,000. He acquired such a salary through family business. However, the business got disrupted; he met with financial constraints and needed the premise for his own family and its accommodation. The respondent failed to vacate the premises and hence the plaintiff served him with a legal notice that was dated in the year 2018. The reply for the same was given by the respondents and in that the respondent denied the claim of the petitioner to the property.
ALSO READ- ALL ABOUT FAMILY SETTLEMENT DEED
PETITIONER’S ARGUMENTS/ EVIDENCES-
The Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the property that the respondent was occupying, if it had been rented out then it would be able to fetch a rent of about Rs. 35,000 per month, and therefore, the petitioner has been suffering a great loss in not being able to rent out the property. The Counsel for the petitioner contended that the property was occupied by the respondents illegally. The Counsel for the Petitioner therefore claimed damages of Rs. 2000 per day that would amount to Rs. 60,000 per month for illegally occupying the premises. The petitioner therefore has filed for decree of mandatory injunction that would inform the respondent to remove his belonging and possessions and is handed over back to the petitioner.
The petitioner in his written statement in response to the counter claim and in the replication has denied all the contentions put forth by the respondent and had denied that the respondent has become the owner of the suit property by way of adverse possession.
RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS/ EVIDENCES-
The Counsel for the Respondents in the written statement as well as the Counter claim submitted that the petitioner was dispossessed from the ownership of the property in question since the year 2005, and the present suit was filed in the year 2018 which exceeds the period of limitation. Hence the suit is barred by limitation. It was also contended that the defendant has become the owner of the property in question under adverse possession, since the dispossession was uninterrupted, exclusive, open, actual, continued and hostile for the whole period. The respondent therefore claimed that he has become the owner of the disputed property by way of adverse possession and suggested that a declaration to this effect be made by way of a declaration. This was claimed in the counter-claim. The respondent further submitted that the petitioner was not entitled to any damages because the respondent had occupied the said property in his own right. The respondents have further accused the petitioner for suppressio vari and saggestio falsi for the concealment of the necessary facts and details.
Based on the facts and circumstances of the case, the said property was bought by the petitioner in the year 2004, but all the brothers in the family as well as the petitioner were residing together in the disputed property (ground floor) as well as the first floor from the year 2004 to 2005. The respondent submitted that the petitioner and the other brothers were dispossessed of the disputed property in the year 2005 and since then, the respondent’s possession has become uninterrupted and hence he has become the owner of the disputed property by way of adverse possession. The respondent submitted that the petitioner was an employee in their family business which was known by the name “BediBartanBhandar” wherein the respondent and the other brothers were partners. The respondent submitted that the petitioner was given enough salary plus perks but he always made more by way of stealing. This extra income that was earned was used by the petitioner to pay for buying the disputed property. Since there has been a constant internal feud between the partners in the family business, the business has remained closed for a long period of time.
The respondent has further submitted that the petitioner was unmarried and used to pick up fights with neighbors and oftentimes dragged the respondent onto those fights. He petitioner had shown a similar behavior to the wife of the respondent due to which the respondent had taken some prior legal advice and dispossessed the petitioner from the disputed property and thereby become the owner. The respondent has vehemently denied any fact of ever agreeing to the shift from his own property and premises.
The respondent has further denied knowledge on the wedding of the petitioner that happened in the year 2013, and the respondent further stated that he never attended the wedding. It was further submitted that the reply for the legal notice that was sent by the petitioner was replied by the respondent personally and he never did it via a legal counsel. The respondent vehemently denied that the property could achieve a rent of Rs. 35,000 per month and therefore he was liable to pay damages.
In the counter claim, the respondent has stated that he has thus become the owner of the disputed property via adverse possession and he should be declared the owner of the disputed property by a declaration to that effect. The petitioner should be restrained from creating any third party interest and should not interfere in the enjoyment of the disputed property in a peaceful manner.
ALSO READ- PROPERTY TRANSFER IN CHANDIGARH PANCHKULA MOHALI ZIRAKPUR
CONTROVERSY INVOLVED FOR ADJUDICATION-
- Whether the respondent has become the owner of the disputed property by way of adverse possession.
- Whether the petitioner’s filing of the suit is well within the limitation period.
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to receive damages.
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to any sort of interest on the damages.
- Whether the respondent is entitled to a declaration to the ownership of the suit property.
FINDINGS OF THE COURT-
The court having perused all the facts and circumstances of the case and having gone through the evidence at hand, have come to the conclusion that the present case is a classic case of degeneration of human values and the family traditions and relations in this world that is modern and immensely materialistic world where the bonding of the family has faded into the increasing greed for money and property. The two brothers who were known to be a family were standing in the court against each other. The court stated that the petitioner had purchased the disputed property that consisted of the ground floor and the first floor via a sale deed that was registered in the year 2004. The respondents and another party were the witnesses to this sale deed. In the year 2004, the respondent had an independent residential area in Delhi, but he still expressed to reside with the plaintiff. Thereby, he came to live in the suit premises, only he was married and the other brothers were unmarried. The other brothers were divorced and since there was a common kitchen wherein the respondents wife used to prepare a meal for everyone. The court said that in an Indian household such things were typical and most of the family members were involved in the same business. The petitioner being in exclusive ownership of the disputed property, because of the good sentiments and goodwill towards his brothers allowed them to stay in his house on the consideration of being looked after by the respondents, and the other brothers namely Inder Singh Bedi and Avtar Singh Bedi.
The respondent did agree that the suit property registration sale deed was in favor of the petitioner, but also asserted that the petitioner was an employee in the family business “BediBartanBhandar” wherein the respondents as well as the other brothers were partners. But the petitioner was not loyal and he used to make money by stealing from the business and with the help of this black money he purchased the suit property.
The Court also brought about the point of the plaintiff that after he had gotten married in the year 2013, he was in need of additional space and accommodation and thereby asked the respondent to shift the premises.
The Court said that the respondent having once gained an entry into the house, developed an ill design to orchestrate and become the owner of the suit property. The respondent has written that he consulted a lawyer to take possession of the suit property but the lawyer advised that he could not become the owner. The lawyer has also advised that if the respondent remained in possession of the property for 12 years without any court case then he can become the owner. It was further stated that the petitioner that is the brother was quarrelsome and used to fight a lot with his wife as well as his neighbors.He has had a fight with his neighbor Arvinder Singh and had gotten him involved him in a case. The petitioner has continually been creating tensions.
A person who is not the owner of the property may live in the premises of the property lawfully, under the following three conditions.
- He may live as a tenant and would be governed by the Transfer if Property Act or under the Rent Control Act in case the rent falls under Rs. 3000 per month.
- A licensee who is given permissions to use the property for a certain period of time by payment of the license charges. The license could be terminated either by notices or the efflux of time and the property owner may seek permission to make the tenant move by way of a civil suit.
- The person who is allowed to live and occupy the premises as the permissive user can be only given the right to continue in the premises of the property till the owner wills.in such a condition, the tenant acquires the right to continue within the suit premises, and during this period he acquires title of exclusive possession of the property during the tenancy and the tenancy can only be ended after giving a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. Even despite that, the tenant can be evicted as per the Rent Act.
ALSO READ- LANDLORD TENANT DISPUTES CHANDIGARH PANCHKULA MOHALI
LIST OF JUDGMENTS INVOLVED-
- Puran Singh v. The State of Punjab[1]
This case describes the possession by a permissive user. The occupation of a property by any person as an agent or a servant at the behest of the owner would not amount to physical possession.
- Sham Lal v. Rajinder Kumar and Ors.[2]
This case held that it would be a misnomer to tell that a petitioner is in the possession of the property. Possession holds two elements-
- Corpus
- Animus
Petitioner is neither the owner nor a licensee or a person in illegal possession of the suit property. Possession of a servant can be equated to possession by a real owner. A person in physical possession may not be in actual possession in the eyes of the law, if the animus seems to be lacking.
To complete the actual idea of possession, one must consider the following-
- The person possessing
- The things that are being possessed
- The persons who are excluded from possession
- SM Karim v. MstBibiSakina[3]
This case held that the plea for limitation can be taken with the full particulars to make sure of the starting point of the limitation.
ORDER-
The Court having perused the evidence came to the conclusion that the respondent was in a mere permissive use of the premises of the property. The petitioner being barred by the statute of limitation should not arise. The suit of the petitioner is not barred by any limitation.
The suit property with regards the possession of the petitioner is decreed and the petitioner is entitled to charges of Rs. 35,000 as well as an interest of 6% per annum from the date of institution to the handing over of possession. The counter claim of the respondent stood dismissed.
This post was written by Haritha Dhinakarn.
You must take an expert advice from a good/top/best Family/Property/Will lawyer/Advocate before making an arrangement with the family members and putting it onto the papers. A sound professional legal advice goes a long way in preserving your rights.
For more info on the subject, please dial 99888-17966.
[1] (1975) 4 SCC 518
[2]1994 (30) DRJ 596
[3]AIR 1964 SC 1254
