Mehra v Mehra & Aras

Mehra v Mehra & Aras

The trial judge was entitled to reject Dr Mehra's evidence regarding beneficial ownership and actual occupation based on credibility and inconsistencies. Even if Dr Mehra had a beneficial interest, the claim was defeated by section 29 of the Land Registration Act 2002 as Mr and Mrs Aras were bona fide purchasers for value without notice and Dr Mehra's interest was not protected by registration or actual occupation.

Parties
Applicant: Dr Madhav Mehra; First Respondent: Randiv Madhav Mehra; Second Respondent: Mr Aras; Third Respondent: Mrs Aras
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 June 2009
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Renewed Application for Permission to Appeal
Outcome
renewed application for permission to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Beneficial Ownership, Actual Occupation, Admissibility of Evidence, Credibility of Witnesses, Priority of Interests, Bona Fide Purchaser
Property Law Civil Procedure Beneficial Ownership Actual Occupation Admissibility of Evidence Credibility of Witnesses Priority of Interests Bona Fide Purchaser

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dr Madhav Mehra

Applicant

Randiv Madhav Mehra

First Respondent

Mr Aras

Second Respondent

Mrs Aras

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Renewed Application for Permission to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Dr Mehra was the beneficial owner of 101 Park Avenue
  2. 2 Whether the findings of fact by the trial judge regarding credibility and beneficial ownership were erroneous
  3. 3 Whether the trial judge erred in refusing to admit the witness statement of Mr Mark Lyal

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge was entitled to reject Dr Mehra's evidence regarding beneficial ownership and actual occupation based on credibility and inconsistencies. Even if Dr Mehra had a beneficial interest, the claim was defeated by section 29 of the Land Registration Act 2002 as Mr and Mrs Aras were bona fide purchasers for value without notice and Dr Mehra's interest was not protected by registration or actual occupation.

Court Disposition

renewed application for permission to appeal refused

Orders

  • Permission to appeal refused