BAINI PRASAD (D) THR. LRS. versus DURGA DEVI

BAINI PRASAD (D) THR. LRS. versus DURGA DEVI

Appellants were not transferees within Section 51 TP Act because concurrent findings show respondent was the owner and appellants had encroached and lacked colour of title and bona fide belief; estoppel/acquiescence was not established as respondent had objected and sued within limitation; consequently the High Court rightly set aside the First Appellate Court’s modification and restored the trial court decree for demolition and delivery of possession; appeals dismissed.

Parties
Appellant: BAINI PRASAD (D) THR. LRS.; Respondent: DURGA DEVI
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
02 February 2023
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal to Supreme Court Against High Court Judgment and Review Order (civil Appeal Nos. 6182 6183 of 2009)
Outcome
Appeals dismissed
Legal Topics
Transfer of Property Act Section 51, Estoppel, Acquiescence, Section 115 Evidence Act, Possession, Injunction, Encroachment
Property Law Civil Procedure Evidence Transfer of Property Act Section 51 Estoppel Acquiescence Section 115 Evidence Act Possession +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

BAINI PRASAD (D) THR. LRS.

Appellant

DURGA DEVI

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal to Supreme Court Against High Court Judgment and Review Order (civil Appeal Nos. 6182 6183 of 2009)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Section 51 of the Transfer of Property Act applies to the appellants who constructed a verandah on disputed land
  2. 2 Whether the respondent is estopped by acquiescence or delay from seeking demolition and recovery of possession
  3. 3 Whether concurrent findings of ownership and encroachment by lower courts warrant restoration of the trial court decree

Ratio Decidendi

Appellants were not transferees within Section 51 TP Act because concurrent findings show respondent was the owner and appellants had encroached and lacked colour of title and bona fide belief; estoppel/acquiescence was not established as respondent had objected and sued within limitation; consequently the High Court rightly set aside the First Appellate Court’s modification and restored the trial court decree for demolition and delivery of possession; appeals dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed

Orders

  • Appeals dismissed
  • Judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court set aside to the extent it denied demolition and recovery of possession