M/S. KAMAKSHI BUILDERS versus M/.S. AMBEDKAR EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY AND ORS.

M/S. KAMAKSHI BUILDERS versus M/.S. AMBEDKAR EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY AND ORS.

The onus to prove acquisition of title by oral gift lay on Respondent No. 1, which was not discharged. Oral gift was not proved, title by prescription not tenable, and Article 67 of Limitation Act did not apply since Respondent No. 1 continued as tenant. Trial court properly passed decree in favour of plaintiff as respondent failed to prove title.

Parties
Appellant: Mis. Kamakshi Builders; Respondent No. 1: Mis. Ambedkar Educational Society; Respondent No. 3: Respondent No. 3
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
18 May 2007
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Final Decision on Appeal From High Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed; judgment of High Court set aside; decree in favour of plaintiff (appellant) restored
Legal Topics
Tenancy, Landlord Tenant Dispute, Oral Gift, Adverse Possession, Burden of Proof, Limitation, Statutory Tenancy
Property Law Rent Control Limitation Law Tenancy Landlord Tenant Dispute Oral Gift Adverse Possession Burden of Proof +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 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mis. Kamakshi Builders

Appellant

Mis. Ambedkar Educational Society

Respondent No. 1

Respondent No. 3

Respondent No. 3

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Final Decision on Appeal From High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Respondent No. 1 acquired title to the property by oral gift from Respondent No. 3
  2. 2 Whether Respondent No. 1 acquired title by adverse possession
  3. 3 Applicability of Article 67 of the Limitation Act 1963 to the suit for possession against a tenant

Ratio Decidendi

The onus to prove acquisition of title by oral gift lay on Respondent No. 1, which was not discharged. Oral gift was not proved, title by prescription not tenable, and Article 67 of Limitation Act did not apply since Respondent No. 1 continued as tenant. Trial court properly passed decree in favour of plaintiff as respondent failed to prove title.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; judgment of High Court set aside; decree in favour of plaintiff (appellant) restored

Orders

  • Impugned judgment of High Court set aside
  • Decree in favour of plaintiff restored