Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 60, Order 21 Rule 64  -- Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882), Section 53 -- Attachment of property – Property transferred in favour of son by lease deed by Judgment debtor – Lease deed is dated 20.2.2014 just before passing of the decree on 1.5.2014 – Executing court dismissed the application without adverting to provisions of Section 53 of the Act – Impugned order set aside, matter remanded back to the Executing Court for afresh adjudication by taking into consideration provisions of Section 53 of the Act and all other relevant material.

(Para 1-4)

A. Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), Section 16 -- Suit for specific performance – Readiness and willingness -- High Court non-suited the appellant-original plaintiff on the ground that as the post-dated cheque of Rs. 35 lakhs was returned which was towards part sale consideration and tendering the worthless post-dated cheque cannot be said to be tendering the payment and therefore, there was no concluded contract between the parties -- By observing so, the High Court has refused to go into the aspect of the readiness and willingness on the part of the plaintiff – Held, at the time when the post-dated cheque of Rs. 35 lakhs was tendered the same cannot be said to be worthless cheque -- Post-dated cheque of Rs. 35 lakhs returned by the bank was with an endorsement i.e., “payment stopped by attachment order” as there was a raid conducted by the IT Department and the bank account was attached and therefore, the post-dated cheque was returned -- Therefore, the observation made by the High Court cannot be accepted.

(Para 4)

B. Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), Section 16 -- Suit for specific performance – Readiness and willingness – Framing of issue -- There must be a specific issue framed on readiness and willingness on the part of the plaintiff in a suit for specific performance and before giving any specific finding, the parties must be put to notice -- The object and purpose of framing the issue is so that the parties to the suit can lead the specific evidence on the same -- On the aforesaid ground the judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court dismissing the suit and refusing to pass the decree for specific performance of the agreement to sell confirmed by the High Court deserves to be quashed and set aside and the matter is to be remanded to the learned Trial Court to frame the specific issue with respect to the readiness and willingness on the part of the plaintiff.

(Para 4.1)

Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), Section 36, 37 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 9 -- Injunction simplicitor – Maintainability of -- Ratio of the judgment passed in Anathula Sudhakar’s case, Civil Appeal No.6191 of 2001, dated 25.03.2008 passed by the Supreme Court is that the relief of injunction simplicitor cannot be sought by a person whose title over the property is in dispute -- Plaintiffs’ title over the suit property was not in dispute, though the defendants made a deplorable attempt to dispute the same by concealing relevant facts from the Court – Therefore, the defendants cannot raise any plea based upon the judgment.

(Para 10)

A. Indian Succession Act, 1925 (39 of 1925), Section 63 -- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 68 -- Proof of Will – Suspicious circumstances – Burden to prove -- Mere proving of a Will does not establish the same to be valid in law, in case the same is surrounded by suspicious circumstances -- The beneficiary is not only required to discharge his burden to prove the Will; but is also to satisfy the conscious of the Court that there are no suspicious circumstances or if there are any, to explain them is also on the propounder of the Will -- It is only when such responsibility is discharged by the beneficiary, the Court can accept the Will to be genuine.

(Para 7)

B. Indian Succession Act, 1925 (39 of 1925), Section 63 -- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 68 -- Will – Suspicious circumstances -- It is settled proposition of law that mere exclusion or dis-heritance of a natural heir while executing a Will is not to be taken as a suspicious circumstance as the very purpose of execution of a Will is to divert from the line of natural succession -- However, it has also been settled and expounded upon by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in catena of judgments that any unnatural, improbable or unfair disposition made in the Will has to be considered as a suspicious circumstance.

(Para 9)

C. Indian Succession Act, 1925 (39 of 1925), Section 63 -- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 68 -- Will – Suspicious circumstances -- Respondent happened to be the legally wedded wife of deceased, neither the testator has recorded the factum of his marriage with the respondent in the Will; nor even her name has been mentioned therein -- More than that, no provision has even been made for her maintenance particularly under the circumstances wherein it has been established/ proved on record that the relationship between the husband and wife remained amicable throughout – From cumulative effect of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, one can easily see through that the testator’s mind was not free at the time of making disposition of Will.

(Para 9-14)

A. Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act, 1952 (27 of 1952), Section 8-A -- Chandigarh Leasehold of Sites and Building Rules, 1973, Rule 20 -- Cancellation of allotment of plot -- Affidavit of not owning of any other plot or dwelling unit -- Petitioner allotted a dwelling unit after her declaration to the Society -- No valid ground to cancel her allotment.

(Para 12)

B. Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act, 1952 (27 of 1952), Section 8-A -- Chandigarh Leasehold of Sites and Building Rules, 1973, Rule 20 -- Power of attorney – Cancellation of allotment of plot – Transferring the lease hold rights in the property to attorney before the expiry of 15 years in violation of the condition no. 15 of the allotment letter -- Petitioner denied such transfer to her attorney -- She asserted that she was settled in USA and therefore, she had executed a power of attorney in favour of her friend for the proper management of the site/unit – No registered assignment of lease hold rights in favour of her attorney on record -- In the absence thereof it is difficult to come to a conclusion about the factum of transfer -- Cancellation order was passed more than twenty eight years after the allotment -- Cancellation on this ground would not be justified -- Petition allowed, impugned orders quashed.

(Para 13, 14)

A. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 9 -- Multiple cause of action – Civil suit – Limitation -- Suit can be filed within three years from the accrual of the initial cause of action, however, any successive violation of rights after institution of the suit would not give fresh cause of action to file a suit -- If the suit is based on multiple causes of action, the period of limitation would commence from the date when the right to sue first accrued.

(Para 13)

B. East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (50 of 1948), Section 44 -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 9 – Consolidation proceedings -- Jurisdiction of civil court -- Consolidation Authorities allotted 15 kanal 5 marla land of lesser value to the defendant as per his entitlement in lieu of 7 kanal 12 marla of standard land during consolidation -- Plaintiff till date has not challenged the order of Consolidation Authorities -- In case, the plaintiff was aggrieved by any such order, he should have challenged it before the authorities empowered under the Consolidation Act, which admittedly was not done -- Jurisdiction of the Civil Court barred -- Civil Court cannot derive jurisdiction beyond the statute by merely giving it a colour for a suit of declaration.

(Para 15)

C. Haryana Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 34, 44 -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 9 -- Mutation – Jurisdiction of civil Court -- Mutation is only entered to update the revenue records and it not being a document of title does not confer any right on any person whatsoever -- Correctness of mutation cannot be challenged by plaintiff in a civil suit.

(Para 16)

D. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 9 -- Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), Section 34 -- Maintainability of suit for simplicitor declaration -- If the plaintiff is not in possession of the suit land, he cannot file a simpliciter suit for declaration and injunction without claiming possession thereof.

(Para 20)

Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), Sections 10, 16 (c), 20, 21, 22, 23 – Specific performance of agreement – Alternative relief of refund -- Agreement of sale provided that in the event the permission was not obtained within 75 days, the purchaser shall be entitled to get back his advance money paid after 75 days but not later than 90 days under any circumstances – Defendant/ owner terminated the agreement on 12th April 1982 stating therein that permission from the ULC Authorities could not be obtained – Plaintiff/ Purchaser did not take any step till 19th February 1984 -- Only after the ULC permission was granted on 7th February 1984, the plaintiff had issued a legal notice to the defendant on 19th February 1984 – High Court denied the relief for specific performance to the plaintiff, it has directed the respondents-defendants to refund the advance amount of Rs.15,000/- along with accrued interest or a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- in all – Defendant had, in fact, received an amount of Rs.15,000/- as early as 1978, Supreme Court directed the respondents-defendants to pay an amount of Rs.15,00,000/- to the appellants-plaintiffs within a period of 3 months.

(Para 13-16)

Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908), Section 17 – Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), Section 37 -- Unregistered agreement to sell on ten rupees stamp paper – Admissibility of -- Suit for permanent injunction -- Counter-claim seeking possession -- Unregistered document/agreement to sell shall not be admissible in evidence -- Plaintiff cleverly prayed for a relief of permanent injunction only and did not seek for the substantive relief of specific performance of the agreement to sell as the agreement to sell was an unregistered document and therefore on such unregistered document/ agreement to sell, no decree for specific performance could have been passed -- Plaintiff cannot get the relief by clever drafting -- Suit dismissed and the counter-claim filed by the original defendant allowed.

(Para 5-9)

Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), Section 39 -- Right of owner to have possession – Licensee in possession – Remedy of -- Licensor can always seek possession by filing a suit for mandatory injunction -- Only caveat to this is that the owner has to file the suit for possession with promptitude i.e. within reasonable time – Plaintiffs purchased the suit property from respondent No.4/ defendant No.5 vide a registered sale deed dated 8.6.2011 – As per the pleadings, appellants sought 4-5 months’ time to vacate the premises -- However, once, the appellants did not vacate the premises, the suit was promptly filed by respondents No.1 to 3 on 10.10.2013 -- Appellants failed to prove any right, title or interest in the suit property, their status can at best be treated as licensee in the premises in question -- Time period taken by respondents No.1 to 3 in filing the suit for mandatory injunction appears to be reasonable.

(Para 8, 9)

A. Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (30 of 1956), Section 4(2) – Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 (8 of 1954), Section 50(a) – Constitution of India, Article 254 – Challenge to Section 50(a) of Delhi Reforms Act, 1954 – Repugnancy in two Acts -- Concurrent list III -- Question of repugnancy would not come into existence unless it is first established that both enactments are under the Concurrent list (List III) – 1954 Act is not referable to any matter enumerated in List III but it is referable to Entry 18 of List II -- Thus, no question of repugnancy would arise in view of Article 254 of the Constitution.

(Para 18, 19)

B. Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (30 of 1956), Section 4(2) – General Clauses Act, 1897 (10 of 1897), Section 6(b) (c) -- Repeal of Section 4(2) of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 – Prospective effect -- Deletion of Section 4(2) took place w.e.f 09.09.2005 therefore, the effect of the deletion can only be in respect of successions which opened on or after 09.09.2005 -- This is because under Section 6(b) and 6(c) of the General Clauses Act repeal cannot affect the previous operation of any enactment so repealed and cannot affect any right which may have been acquired or accrued.

(Para 23-25)

C. Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (30 of 1956), Section 4(2) – Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 (8 of 1954), Section 50(a) – Repeal of Section 4(2) of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 w.e.f. 09.09.2005 – Prospective effect -- Property in question is agricultural property, and therefore, in 1997 on death, the devolution of interest (inheritance) would be determinable on the said date, in accordance with the law existing at that time -- Subsequent deletion would not have any impact on the rights of inheritance, which had already accrued and crystallised, prior to the amendment -- Even existence of Section 4(2) in the 1956 Act and its deletion will not have any impact for the reason that the 1954 Act, is a special law, dealing with fragmentation, ceiling, and devolution of tenancy rights over agricultural holdings only, whereas the 1956 Act is a general law, providing for succession to a Hindu by religion as stated in Section 2 thereof -- Existence or absence of Section 4(2) in the 1956 Act would be immaterial.

(Para 21-26)

D. Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 (8 of 1954), Section 50(a) – Constitution of India, Article 14, 15, 21, 254 – Challenge to Section 50(a) of Delhi Reforms Act, 1954 -- Gender bias/ women empowerment  -- There can be no challenge to the 1954 Act as the said legislation is included in the Ninth Schedule of the Constitution of India.

(Para 28)

E. Amendment in statute -- Prospective effect -- It is well settled that all amendments are deemed to apply prospectively unless expressly specified to apply retrospectively or intended to have been done so by the legislature.

(Para 23)

Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Rajasthan Special Assistance to Disabled Ex-Servicemen and Dependants of Deceased Defence Personnel (Allotment of Lands) Rules, 1963, Rules 2(a), 3, 6, 7 -- Allotment of land to Disabled ex-serviceman – Right of – Internal departmental communication – Reliance upon -- Letter written by the Secretary of the Soldier Welfare Department to the District Collector, on 19.03.1971 for allotment of land -- Rules contemplate that if the possession is not taken within 6 months, the allotment shall be deemed to have been cancelled – Held, firstly, the inter-departmental communication dated 19.03.1971 cannot be treated to be a letter of allotment -- Alternatively, even if it is considered to be a letter of allotment, the writ petitioner could not claim possession on the basis of such communication after more than 30 years in terms of the Rules applicable for allotment of land to the disabled ex-servicemen -- Disabled ex-serviceman had not taken any action for almost 27 years after the so-called letter of allotment during his life time – Writ petition filed by the writ petitioner is wholly misconceived, mischievous with collateral motives -- High Court had gone out of the way to order possession of land which was never proceeded with letter of allotment in favour of the writ petitioner -- Appeal allowed, order passed by the High Court set aside.

(Para 13-18)

Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), Sections 10, 16 (c), 20, 21, 22, 23 -- Suit for specific performance of contract – Alternative relief of refund -- Agreement to sell for two properties – Soon after, plaintiff came to know that defendant was likely to assign the properties to third parties, filed application for temporary injunction, thereafter, communicated his interest to pay balance sale consideration and requested for execution of sale deed -- Request denied by defendant -- Suit filed for specific performance decreed by Trial Court – Division Bench of High Court instead of decreeing the suit for specific performance allowed the alternative relief of refund of advance -- Direction was given to defendant to pay plaintiff along with interest @ 12% p.a. from date of agreement till realization and also to bear  entire cost of suit before Trial Court and High Court – High Court deny specific performance on account of the following reasons:

i) That a huge sum of Rs.50 lakhs was paid as cash to the defendant which covers almost major portion of the sale consideration. Under normal circumstances when huge amounts are involved, some payments are paid either by cheque or demand draft.

ii) Plaintiff is a person who is capable of purchasing the entire property by paying the entire sale consideration at one stretch. If he could pay fifty lakhs on 20.01.2005, he could have paid the balance amount within a short time.

iii) It is not known under what circumstance a period of four months had been stated for complying with the terms of contract.

iv) Plaintiff claims that he was put in possession of the property which appears to be incorrect. There is no evidence to prove the said fact.

v) Plaintiff is a person who does not know to read Malayalam, but still the agreement is executed in Malayalam.

vi) The agreement is written by PW3 who is an interested party to the transaction. He claims to have received commission from both the parties which is not the practice followed in such situations.

vii) Defendant has a contention that his intention was only to get a loan for which he had signed certain papers. But he further states that he did not receive the loan. According to him, he had not received any amount from the plaintiff which of course we don’t agree.

viii) The actual amount paid by the plaintiff to defendant can only be discerned from the agreement, the genuineness of which is doubted by the defendant.

ix) Exts. A5 and A5(a) though had been relied upon by the Court below, the manner in which the said documents are executed and the purpose is doubtful.

x) The intention of the defendant was to sell only one item of property as is evident from Exts.B1 and B2 advertisements. The advertisements were published on 1^st January, 2005. A person who is in dire need of finances will either sell his property or he may take loan. Taking into account the factual circumstances, it is possible that a loan was arranged by the plaintiff for which a document in the nature of Ext.A1 was prepared.

Held, reasons given by High Court for not awarding relief of specific performance were sufficient -- Substantial justice was done by granting the  alternate relief.

(Paras 9-14)

Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882), Section 52 -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 1 Rule 10, Order 6 Rule 17 – Suit for specific performance – Subsequent purchaser as party-defendant – Amendment of plaint -- Doctrine of lis pendens – Effect of -- No doubt, by rule of lis pendens, subsequent purchaser is bound by the decree but at the same time, it cannot be said that the presence of the purchaser in the suit proceedings would be improper also – By amendment plaintiff only seeks to introduce the subsequent events relating to the alienation of the suit property -- Application filed by the petitioner/plaintiff under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC read with Order 1 Rule 10 CPC allowed.

(Para 7, 8)

Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), Section 6 – Constitution of India, Article 227 -- Recovery of possession – Limitation -- Suit beyond six months -- As per the pleaded case of the petitioner, he was dispossessed from the suit property on 28.04.2009 and thereafter, FIR was registered 08.05.2010 u/s 447/448/380 IPC – Instant suit came to be instituted on 02.02.2013 i.e. much beyond the prescribed period of six months – Trial Court dismissed the suit -- No error in the impugned order passed by the ld. trial Court – Revision dismissed.

(Para 1-6)

Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882), Section 60 -- Bank loan recovery matter -- Auction sale of mortgaged property – Right of borrower to redeem mortgage -- Right of redemption would be available to the borrowers before issuance of sale certificate in favour of Auction Purchasers, and such a right would continue till execution of a conveyance i.e. issuance of a sale certificate in favour of the mortgagee -- Dues of the Bank have been fully cleared and the principal amount deposited by the auction purchaser has been refunded – Sale notice required to be set aside -- Bank shall restore to the petitioners the Title Deeds of the secured asset/s which are in its custody within two weeks and the restriction imposed on the petitioners not to alter the nature of the property or create any third party rights including taking loan against the property set aside -- Bank directed to pay interest @7% per annum to Auction Purchaser from the respective dates of deposit of the bid amount till when the principal amount was refunded to it.

(Para 19-31)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 100 -- Natural succession of wife -- Civil Court decree in favour of sons – Wife filed a suit against 4 of her sons and subsequent purchasers from her 4 sons -- Both the Courts found that the plaintiff/wife  has not challenged the correctness of Civil Court judgment and decree -- It has been held that deceased was not the owner of the suit land on the date of his death -- Hence, the question of inheritance of the estate does not arise -- No merit in the facts of the case  -- Appeal dismissed.

(Para 2-5)

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 417, 420, 467, 468 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 401 -- Agreement to sell with complainant – Concealment of previous agreement – Conviction by Trial Court, affirmed by Appellate Court – Revision against -- In agreement to sell executed with the complainant, it was stated that there is no prior agreement pertaining to the land -- Vendee of prior agreement to sell/ PW-1 submitted that the agreement to sell was executed with him and that the civil suit filed for specific performance of the said agreement under the Specific Relief Act was decreed in his favour and consequently, the sale deed was executed in his favour – Claim of the petitioner that he did not intend to defraud the complainant is apparently misconceived -- No explanation has been given as to why a wrong statement was made by the petitioner under his signature in the agreement – It cannot be said that the dispute in question was civil in nature – No illegality, perversity, infirmity or impropriety in the judgments passed by the Courts below – Revision dismissed.

(Para 10-16)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 401 -- Revisional jurisdiction -- Restricted to examine whether there is any manifest error of law or procedure, such a power is to be exercised only when there is an apparent illegality, gross procedural irregularity or impropriety leading to miscarriage of justice, legal infirmity or gross mis-appreciation of the evidence that does not reconcile to the conclusion drawn by the Court -- High Court in a revisional jurisdiction would not interfere in the opinion of the Courts below if such an opinion is a possible opinion on the basis of the evidence brought on record and would not substitute its own opinion merely because such opinion is also a possible opinion.

(Para 15)

Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), Section 37 -- Injunction against co-sharer – Purchase of share in property – Mention of boundaries in sale deed -- – Effect of -- Appellant had purchased 10/392 share, 8 ½ /392 share and 8 ½ /392 share in the joint khewat and there was nothing on the file to show that any partition had ever taken place between the parties and the co-sharers had been allotted any specific portions of the joint land and the possession had been delivered to them accordingly -- Appellant could have produced the copies of the relevant khasra girdawaries on the record to show that he or his afore-named vendors were recorded therein to be in settled exclusive possession over the suit property and the same could have clinched the entire matter in dispute between the parties – Held, mere mention of the boundaries of the property in the said sale deeds, as executed in favour of the appellant, does not suffice at all to substantiate the above-said fact -- In these circumstances, the appellant, being a co-sharer, cannot seek the relief of permanent injunction against the defendants-co-sharers.

(Para 5,6)

A. Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), Section 34, 36, 27 – Suit for declaration, possession, permanent injunction -- Sale deed for personal necessity – Challenge to -- Sale deed itself records “Kharch Khaangi anya bhumi kharid karne hetu dhan ki jaroorat hai” which means that the sale was being done for meeting domestic expenses and for purchasing other land -- Thus, the intention to sell the suit property was for legal necessity -- Courts below found that the evidence available on the record produced by the plaintiff showed that the sale of the suit property was for legal necessity -- Findings upheld.

(Para 11)

B. Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), Section 34, 36, 27 – Suit for declaration, possession, permanent injunction -- Sale deed for personal necessity – Challenge to -- Limitation -- Sale deed which has been challenged was executed on 03.08.1994 while the suit was filed in 2017 after over 23 years – Suit held to be barred by limitation by Courts below – Finding upheld.

(Para 11)

C. Customary law – Proof of -- Custom has to be specifically pleaded and established by leading cogent evidence by the person propounding such custom -- Plaintiff failed to establish the applicability of customary law – In the absence of specific pleadings supported by evidence the plea of custom cannot be accepted.

(Para 11)

A. Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), Section 31, 34, 37 – Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882), Section 124 – Court Fees Act, 1870 (7 of 1870), Section 7 (iv)(c) -- Gift deed – Suit for declaration and permanent injunction -- Annulment of Gift deed – Advalorem court fee -- Gift is without consideration, and possession has not even been delivered and continues to be in the possession of the executant  -- Gift deed has been challenged on the ground of fraud -- No court fee is required to be paid.

(Para 9)

B. Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), Section 31, 34, 37 – Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882), Section 124 – Court Fees Act, 1870 (7 of 1870), Section 7 (iv)(c) -- Gift deed – Suit for declaration and permanent injunction -- Annulment of Gift deed – Advalorem court fee -- Neither any consideration amount is involved nor relief of possession of the property is sought for, the petitioner/ plaintiff cannot be directed to pay ad-valorem court fee.

(Para 11)

Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882), Section 122 -- Execution of relinquish deed in favour of nephew – Challenge to -- Suspicious circumstances -- In the normal course of events, it seems highly improbable that the plaintiff would have relinquished all her rights in the suit land in favour of only one of the children of her brothers, i.e the defendant, while depriving her own children as well as the children of her other brothers from having any right in the same and that too, specially in the circumstances when she was not residing with him and thus, he was not having any occasion to serve her -- Concurrent findings of the both the Courts below to the effect that the plaintiff was an aged and illiterate lady -- None of her family members, except the defendant, had accompanied her at the time of the alleged execution of the relinquishment deed in question in defendant's favour, to the exclusion of her own children and all other members of her parental family -- These facts, in themselves, do suffice to substantiate the averments of the plaintiff even without looking into and considering any weakness in the case of the defendant – Appeal dismissed.

(Para 7, 8)

Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882), Section 58 -- Redemption of mortgage – Right of – Mortgage was not redeemed by the mortgagor within a period of 30 years, the plaintiff filed a suit for declaration that she had become the owner after the extinguishment of the mortgage rights and for permanent injunction – Suit was decreed by the trial Court -- Such decree was affirmed by the First Appellate Court but in Second Appeal, the suit was dismissed – Held, once a usufructuary mortgage is created, the mortgagor has a right to redeem the mortgage at any point of time on the principle that once a mortgage always a mortgage – No merit in the appeal same is dismissed.

(Para 2-7)

Haryana Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1972 (24 of 1972), Section 2(e), 3(a) – Unauthorised possession – Public premises -- Original owner left the village allegedly sometime in the year 1974 and he died on 03.03.1987 – Petitioner came in possession of the land in dispute after original owner had left the village -- In the civil proceedings, he has not been able to establish his title to the said property and even failed to establish the nature of his possession -- It is, thus, obvious that he was an encroacher -- Property in dispute came to be declared as owned by the Government vide judgment and decree dated 23.02.1998 and, thus, even though the petitioner came into possession prior to the said date, he is a person in unauthorized possession of a public premises.

(Para 5)

Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882), Section 53 – Maintenance law – Charge on property – Sale of property to father and sister by husband -- Suit for declaration that the alleged mutation based on alleged sale deed is hit by the provision of Section 53 of the 1882 Act and hence it is null and void and ineffective against the rights of the plaintiffs and they are not party to the alleged aforesaid sale deed – Once a demand for maintenance made before the husband sold the property, then wife falls within the definition of creditor within the meaning of Section 53 of the 1882 Act -- Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court held that Plaintiffs/ children are entitled to maintenance @ Rs.3000/- per month each whereas plaintiff/ former wife of Sohan Singh, is entitled to maintenance @ Rs.1500/- per month from the date of filing of the suit till the date of her re-marriage – Held, keeping in view the relationship, it was incumbent on the appellants/defendants to lead evidence to prove that the transaction between them was genuine and the consideration amount equivalent to the market value was paid – Plaintiffs were not required to pray for annulment. Meenakshi Ammal’s case AIR 1927 Madras 657 relied.

(Para 1, 7-12)

Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882), Section 3, 41 -- Sale by power of attorney – No power in attorney to sell – Right of subsequent vendee -- Power of Attorney executed by the appellant in favour of her sister contained provisions empowering the agent: (i) to grant leases under Clause 15; (ii) to make borrowals if and when necessary with or without security, and to execute and if necessary, register all documents in connection therewith, under Clause 20; and (iii) to sign in her own name, documents for and on behalf of the appellant and present them for registration, under Clause 22-- But there was no clause in the deed authorizing and empowering the agent to sell the property – Held, it is a fundamental principle of the law of transfer of property that “no one can confer a better title than what he himself has” (Nemo dat quod non habet) -- Appellant’s sister did not have the power to sell the property to the vendors of the respondent -- Therefore, the vendors of the respondent could not have derived any valid title to the property -- If the vendors of the respondent themselves did not have any title, they had nothing to convey to the respondent, except perhaps the litigation.

(Para 9, 19)

Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 68 – Registered Will – Proof of -- Attesting witness – Deposition of -- Contention of appellant/ plaintiff that ‘T’ is the only attesting witness examined by the defendants and he has failed to prove that the Will was signed by second witness, Lambardar either in his presence or in the presence of the testator -- Deposition of ‘T’, the testator as well as both the witnesses were present at the place where the Will was executed at the same time and the appellant plaintiff failed to solicit explanation from ‘T’ as to whether the other attesting witness had signed the Will at the time of execution in his presence or in the presence of testator – It was for the plaintiff to lay the foundation before objecting to the registered Will -- Registered Will bears not only thumb impressions of testator but also her photographs -- Plaintiff does not dispute the correctness of the photographs of the testator -- Plaintiff has not led any evidence to prove that Testator did not affix her thumb impressions on each page of the registered Will at the time of execution and also thumb marked on the Will at the time of its registration – Trial court decreed the suit, however the ld. First Appellate Court reversed the judgment of the trial Court after reappreciating the evidence -- No ground to interfere made out – Appeal dismissed.

(Para 3, 5-12)

Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (18 of 1961), Section 7(2), 13AA (2) (Haryana) – Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Eviction proceeding -- Question of title pending in revision – Writ jurisdiction -- Contention that in case the proceedings u/s 7(2) of the Act is finalised prior to the decision in the revision petition, the petitioners are likely to loose the possession of the land in question without there being any decision on the title -- Direction issued to the F.C, Revenue, to consider and decide the said revision petitions on the next date of hearing, and in case it is not possible to do so on the said date, it may be done within a further period of one week thereafter.

(Para 1-5)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 145 -- Co-owners -- Joint possession – Exclusive possession – Appointment of receiver -- All the co-owners have an equal right to be in possession of every part of the joint property unless there is something to suggest that any of the parties is in exclusive possession of a particular portion -- Nothing on record to suggest that any of the parties is in exclusive possession --  Order appointing Receiver, set aside by ld. Additional Session Judge in revision – Order of ld. ASJ upheld.

(Para 1,5)

Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), Section 34 – Sale of property by father – Legal necessity -- Suit by appellants/plaintiffs for grant of decree of declaration to the effect that the alienation made by their father was without legal necessity -- Both the courts, on appreciation of evidence, have concurrently found that the sale was due to legal necessity and the plaintiffs failed to prove that such sale was not for valid consideration – Land in question was under a mortgage for an amount of Rs.13,000/- -- Total sale consideration was Rs.28,000/- -- It has also come on record that vendor required the money for repayment of the mortgage amount, purchase of a diesel engine of a tubewell and the marriage expenses of his niece – No ground to interfere – Appeal dismissed.

(Para 1-5)

Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), Section 16 – Readiness and willingness -- In agreement to sell, it is provided that the defendant No.1 will repay the amount of loan and thereafter, bring a copy of jamabandi to the plaintiff -- However, plaintiff is required to prove his readiness and willingness on the agreed date -- It is his own case that he went to the Office of the Sub-Registrar on 19.11.2003 along with the balance sale consideration -- However, the plaintiff has not led any reliable evidence except his own bald statement to the effect that he had made arrangements for the payment of balance sale consideration --  Defendant sent a notice to the plaintiff on 25.11.2003, still, the plaintiff did not come forward to execute the sale deed -- Plaintiff filed the suit after a period of nearly one year --  Plaintiff is required to prove that he was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract – Trial Court dismissed the suit, whereas, the First Appellate Court has ordered refund of the amount of earnest money along with interest – Order of appellate Court upheld.

(Para 7-11)

A. Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), Section 34, 37, 38 -- Suit for declaration and permanent injunction -- Injunction against true owner -- Plaintiff failed to get any declaratory relief and the defendant No.1 is held to be a true and absolute owner on the basis of the registered sale deed on payment of full sale consideration thereafter the plaintiff’s possession cannot be said to be “lawful possession” -- Plaintiff is not entitled to any permanent injunction against the true owner.

(Para 10)

B. Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), Section 34, 37, 38 -- Substantive relief – Consequential relief -- Once the plaintiff has failed to get any substantive relief of cancellation of the sale deed and failed to get any declaratory relief, relief of injunction can be said to be a consequential relief must fail.

(Para 11)

C. Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), Section 34, 37, 38 -- Suit for declaration -- Consequential relief of injunction – Injunction against true owner -- It is not a suit for declaration simpliciter, it is a suit for declaration with a further relief -- Injunction may be granted even against the true owner of the property, only when the person seeking the relief is in lawful possession and enjoyment of the property and also legally entitled to be in possession, not to disposes him, except in due process of law -- Once the rights of the parties are adjudicated and the defendant No.1 is held to be the true owner on the basis of the registered sale deed and on payment of full sale consideration, it can be said that due process of law has been followed and thereafter the plaintiff is not entitled to any permanent injunction against the true owner.

(Para 11.1-12.1)

A. Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), Section 16 – Agreement to sell – Proof of -- Evidence required -- Non-examination of scribe – Effect of -- Execution of the agreement to sell proved from the evidence of the plaintiff as well as by attesting witness -- It has been proved by stamp vendor that the defendant purchased the stamp paper and signed in his note book -- Defendant failed to impeach credibility of the aforesaid witness in the cross examination – Non-examination of the scribe cannot result in dismissal of the suit particularly when the plaintiff has already led sufficient evidence to prove the execution of the agreement to sell.

(Para 9)

B. Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), Section 14 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 100 -- Suit for specific performance – Ground of delay in suit -- Readiness and willingness -- Plaintiff filed the suit after a period of 1 year and 5 months from the date fixed for registration of the sale deed -- Plaintiff has pleaded that he was always ready and willing -- Defendant was given opportunity to cross examine the witness, however failed to impeach his credibility – Both the Courts, on appreciation of evidence, have recorded a finding of the fact that the plaintiff is ready and willing to perform his part of the contract -- No ground to interfere in the impugned judgments is made out.

(Para 10-12)

A. Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), Section 37 -- Suit for permanent injunction -- Question of title – Requirement of – In suit for grant of permanent injunction, where the main thing to be seen is as to whether the plaintiff has been in established possession of the suit land -- Question of title is not to be decided in such type of suit -- Nevertheless, the document of title to the suit property produced in evidence on behalf of any of the parties can certainly be taken into consideration to find out the nature of possession.

(Para 10)

B. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (v of 1908), Section 151 -- Exhibition of documents – Replacement by original – Permissibility of -- Plaintiff placed on record copy of the sale deed, duly attested by Notary Public, which had been exhibited, though, it was subject to objection with regard to mode of proof and admissibility raised on behalf of the defendant -- Plaintiff sought to place on record the original sale deed and to exhibit it just to remove the technical objection -- Trial Court considering all the aspects of the case, exercising powers u/s 151 CPC had allowed that application -- Such exercise of power by the trial Court can certainly be not termed as arbitrary or perverse, rather, it comes out that such power has been exercised in a judicious manner for proper adjudication of the controversy between the parties.

(Para 10)

C. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (v of 1908), Section 151 -- Inherent power of civil Court – Nature of -- It is a very vast power, which can be exercised by the Court for achieving ends of justice and to prevent abuse of process of the Court -- Unnecessary interference in exercise of such power by the trial Court is uncalled for.

(Para 11)

Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), Section 27 -- Adverse possession -- Co-sharer’s possession – Nature of -- Possession of one co-sharer is deemed to be possession of all, unless and until the said co-sharer can establish exclusive possession with the intention to oust the right of the other co-sharer -- Appellants has not been able to point out any evidence, which shows ouster – Appeal is without any merit and is dismissed.

(Para 1, 4-6)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 6 Rule 17 -- Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882), Section 52 -- Constitution of India, Article 227 -- Suit challenging gift deed – Defendant executed lease deed – Amendment of plaint – Revisional jurisdiction -- Held, any transaction with respect to the suit property during the pendency of the suit is governed by the principle of lis pendens -- Provisions of Order 6 Rule 17 CPC ordinarily prohibits the amendment of the pleadings after the trial has commenced -- Trial has already made substantial progress -- Any transaction between the defendants and third party is not binding on the rights of the plaintiffs, particularly, when these are during the pendency of the suit -- Hence, no ground to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is made out.

(Para 3, 6)

A. Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), Section 14 -- Agreement to sell – Property already mortgage with bank – Criminal proceedings initiated – Effect on civil rights -- Merely because the plaintiff had also preferred criminal proceedings on the ground that the accused had taken bank loan from Bank but had entered into an agreement with him to sell the property, and he had been cheated, would not be a ground to deny the benefit of the decree to him – Appellant/accused acquitted by giving benefit of doubt in criminal proceedings – Suit decreed by civil court, upheld.

(Para 1, 13)

B. Evidence beyond Pleadings – Permissibility of -- It is settled principle that evidence beyond the pleadings cannot be taken into consideration.

(Para 17)

C. Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), Section 14, 16(1)(c) – Specific performance of agreement -- Readiness and willingness – Earnest money and additional amount of Rs.8.5 lacs paid -- Plaintiff prepared D.D. of Rs.13,50,000/-, balance consideration before the cut-off date and purchased stamp papers worth Rs.1,54,000/- -- Filing of the suit was also within a month and a half after serving a legal notice asking the appellant to execute the sale deed -- All these factors combined would go on to show that the Courts below have justifiably decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff.

(Para 2, 18)

D. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 6 Rule 4 -- Evidence law -- Execution of agreement to sell – Willingness of -- Wife of the appellant opposed the agreement by approaching the police -- Appellant himself applied for NOC to sell the property --  These factors would go on to show that the agreement had been entered into for the sale of the said property -- Almost 1/3rd of the amount had been received in advance and therefore, it would not lie in the mouth of the appellant to contend that the same had not been executed by him willingly.

(Para 19)

E. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 6 Rule 4 -- Misrepresentation – Undue influence – Proof of – It is settled principle that allegations of misrepresentation or undue influence have to be given in full and precise particulars and then duly proved under Order 6 Rule 4 CPC.

(Para 20)

Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), Section 10, 10-A -- Suit for specific performance – Delay and laches – Discretion of court -- A suit for specific performance cannot be dismissed on the sole ground of delay or laches -- Exception to this rule is where an immovable property is to be sold within a certain period, time being of the essence, and it is not found that owing to some default on the part of the plaintiff, the sale could not take place within the stipulated time -- Once a suit for specific performance has been filed, any delay as a result of the Court process cannot be put against the plaintiff as a matter of law in decreeing specific performance -- It is within the discretion of the Court, regard being had to the facts of each case, as to whether some additional amount ought or ought not to be paid by the plaintiff once a decree of specific performance is passed in its favour even at the appellate stage -- Escalation of prices cannot be the sole ground to deny specific performance.

(Para 14)

A. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 14 Rule 1 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 68 – Proof of Will – Onus of – Framing of issue – Onus was upon the plaintiff to get the issues framed rightly if he was wanting to set up the plea that the onus of the Will should have been upon the propounder.

(Para 7)

B. Indian Succession Act, 1925 (39 of 1925), Section 61 -- Son living separately – Exclusion of son in Will -- Admission of the plaintiff that he was residing separately for the last 35 years after his marriage would be reason enough for the testator to keep him out of the zone of succession.

(Para 7)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 7 Rule 11 – Suit for permanent injunction -- Death of sole defendant -- Rejection of plaint -- Suit seeking permanent injunction against sole defendant for restraining him from interfering in the possession of the plaintiff or creating any hindrance or obstruction in the peaceful use and enjoyment for irrigation of the fields of the plaintiff from the tubewell/electric motor connection -- After the death of the sole defendant and the nature of the suit, the same cannot continue -- Application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC allowed -- Plaintiff will be within his jurisdiction to initiate any proceedings against legal representatives of sole defendant in a case aggrieved in any manner.

(Para 2, 11, 12)

HUDA plots -- Allotment of plot -- Rejection of oustees claim – Asserted that the claim of the petitioner has wrongly been rejected on the ground that only 44% of the land of the petitioner has been acquired whereas according to the petitioner 100% land has been acquired as the requirement is 75% land in the concerned revenue estate -- Case of the petitioner requires to be reconsidered and that too by the Administrator, Haryana Shahri Vikas Pradhikaran with regard to the assertions of the petitioner – Petitioner to file supplementary representation with supporting documents to highlight his claim for allotment of a plot under the oustees quota showing his entitlement  within a period of two weeks, the same shall be considered and a decision taken thereon by the said authority within a period of six weeks thereafter -- In case, the claim of the petitioner is accepted the consequential benefits be also released to the petitioner in accordance with law.

(Para 1-4)

A. Indian Contract Act, 1872 (9 of 1872), Section 2 -- Auction bid/ Offer – Non-acceptance of -- Merely on the deposit of the earnest money or 10% of the quoted bid amount, the successful/highest bidder would not be entitled to the issuance of Regular Letter of allotment unless acceptance of the bid -- It is only an offer on the part of the bidder -- Contract does not conclude unless this offer is accepted by the competent authority -- Petitioner cannot press as a matter of right that he being the highest bidder, was entitled to acceptance of the said bid.

(Para 18)

B. Auction of commercial tower – Non-fetching of market value – Rejection of bid – Legality of -- Exercise of auction had been resorted to for the purpose of generating revenue, which purpose would not be achieved by accepting a bid which is much lower than the market value and would not be in public interest and would be against the very purpose of generating revenue for which the whole exercise has been carried out – Held, rejection of the bid, therefore, by the competent authority, cannot be said to be without any basis, justification or arbitrary, rather it has acted in the public interest for ensuring that the public property is not sold at lower rates than the market value.

(Para 21)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 -- Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882), Section 52 – Suit property – Stay on alienation – Requirement of – Principle of lis pendence – Parties to the suit are brothers having 1/3^rd share in the suit land – Suit property was orally partitioned, though not been incorporated in the revenue records – Respondents-defendants and/ or their agents were initially restrained by the trial Court from alienating, transferring and changing the nature of the suit property, however, they have been permitted to do so by the appellate Court with a rider to not change the nature and character thereof – Ld. Appellate Court has rightly observed that, in case of any alienation, proposed vendee would step into the shoes of defendants being co-sharers in the joint possession – Any alienation made during pendency of suit would, in any case, be subject to rule of lis pendence – Petition dismissed.

(Para 1-6)

Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), Section 11, 16(1)(c) -- Suit for specific performance – Readiness and willingness – Subsequent purchaser – Right of -- High Court went on the footing that it was not open to the appellant i.e. subsequent purchaser to raise any submissions on the issue of readiness and willingness on behalf of plaintiff -- Judgment clearly fell in serious error – Decision of the High Court set aside and matter remitted for fresh consideration on merits.

(Para 10, 11)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 25 – Indian Succession Act, 1925 (39 of 1925), Section 212, 213, 250, 264, 273, 300 – Testamentary Succession -- Partition suit -- Will -- Probate of -- Transfer of suit --  Partition suit pending in District Court of Delhi is 8 years old -- Written statement was filed way back in November, 2012 – In reply petitioner has pleaded the execution of the disputed Will -- True copy of the Will is stated to have been annexed as D-1/5, to the written statement -- Obviously petitioner was convinced that there was no bar for him to establish his right as a legatee under the will, even without first obtaining letters of administration -- Legal contention raised on behalf of the petitioner that the partition suit should follow the testamentary case, is liable to be rejected in the facts and circumstances of this case -- Testamentary Case pending on the file of the High Court of Uttarakhand is ordered to be transferred to the file of the High Court of Delhi – Partition suit shall stand transferred to the High Court of Delhi and clubbed along with the testamentary proceeding and taken up together for disposal -- Parties are at liberty to move applications for examination of the witnesses including the attesters of the Will, either through Video Conference or through Court appointed Commissioners and applications for such reliefs may be considered by the High Court favourably.

(Para 40-49)

A. Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), Section 36, 37, 38 -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 9, Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 -- Suit for permanent injunction by trespasser -- Maintainability of -- It is a common principle of law that even trespasser, who is in established possession of the property could obtain injunction -- However, the matter would be different, if the plaintiff himself elaborates in the plaint about title dispute and fails to make a prayer for declaration of title along with injunction relief.

(Para 21)

B. Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), Section 36, 37, 38 -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 9, Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 -- Suit for permanent injunction without declaration of title – Maintainability of -- Suit filed by the plaintiff for injunction was maintainable in view of the previous litigation which was initiated at the instance of defendant No.1 where he lost the suit for declaration and recovery of possession of the same property -- Suit for injunction filed by the plaintiff deserved to be decreed on the basis of admitted and established possession of the plaintiff.

(Para 25, 26)

Constitution of India, Article 136, 226 – Uttar Pradesh Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965 (UP Act No. 1 of 1966), Section 95(1) -- Uttar Pradesh Awas Evam Vikas Parishad Bhukhando Tatha Bhavano Ke Panjikaran Evam Pradeshan Sambandhi Viniyam, 1979, Rule 47, 48 --  Registration for plot – Rights for allotment -- Allotments were made by draw of lots of all eligible registered applicants – No draw of lot in favour of grandfather -- Mere registration in the name of Late grandfather, which registration also came to an end after issuance of the Government order there was no right left in the respondent to claim even registration but to say of allotment of a plot -- Mere statement of the counsel for the Board that 19 plots are vacant cannot be utilized for issuance of direction for plot to respondent who has otherwise no right for allotment -- High Court committed error in issuing the direction to allot a plot to the respondent -- Appeal allowed, order of the High Court set aside.

(Para 19-21)

A. Madhya Pradesh Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1960 (20 of 1960), Section 1, 11 -- Constitution of India, Article 300-A -- Surplus land – Deprivation form property -- Right to property is still a constitutional right under Article 300A of the Constitution of India though not a fundamental right -- The deprivation of the right can only be in accordance with the procedure established by law -- Thus, the provisions of the said Act had to be complied with to deprive a person of the land being surplus.

(Para 1, 28)

B. Madhya Pradesh Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1960 (20 of 1960), Section 11(4),(5),(6) -- Surplus land – Suit pending – Right of landholder -- Once a disclosure was made, the matter had to be dealt with under sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the said Act and in view of the pending suit proceedings between the appellant and “J”, the proviso came into play which required the respondent authorities to await the decision of the court -- Sub-section 5 and thereafter sub-section 6 would kick in only after the mandate of sub-section 4 was fulfilled -- Effect of the decree in favour of “J” is that the appellant loses the right to hold that land and his total land holding comes within the ceiling limit -- If there is no surplus land there can be no question of any proceedings for takeover of the surplus land under the said Act.

(Para 29)

A. Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882), Section 111, 114, 114A – Ejectment of lessee – Forfeiture for non-payment of rent -- U/s 114A of the TP Act a condition for issue of notice prior to filing suit of ejectment is provided so as to enable the lessee to remedy the breach – Held, same cannot be construed as a statutory protection nor as a hard and fast rule in all cases to waive the forfeiture -- It is a provision enabling exercise of equitable jurisdiction in appropriate cases as a matter of discretion.

(Para 15)

B. Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882), Section 111, 114, 114A – Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996) -- Ejectment of lessee -- Forfeiture for non-payment of rent – Arbitration jurisdiction -- If the special statutes do not apply to the premises/property and the lease/tenancy created thereunder as on the date when the cause of action arises to seek for eviction or such other relief and in such transaction if the parties are governed by an Arbitration Clause; the dispute between the parties is arbitrable and there shall be no impediment whatsoever to invoke the Arbitration Clause – It would be open for the Arbitrator to take note of Section 114, 114A of TP Act and pass appropriate award in the nature as a Court would have considered that aspect while exercising the discretion.

(Para 16, 18)

C. Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996) -- Protection of Rent Control legislation – Eviction of tenants – Arbitration jurisdiction – Insofar as eviction or tenancy relating to matters governed by special statutes where the tenant enjoys statutory protection against eviction whereunder the Court/Forum is specified and conferred jurisdiction under the statute alone can adjudicate such matters -- Hence in such cases the dispute is non-arbitrable.

(Para 17, 18)

Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), Section 37 -- Suit for permanent injunction – Decision on title – Sustainability of -- Appellants were seeking the relief of permanent injunction only -- Two reports of the Pleader Commissioner also confirmed the possessory title of the appellants along with property tax registers and municipal tax receipts -- Appellants had more than sufficiently established their lawful possession of the suit property -- Conclusion by the courts below that the appellants had failed to establish title and therefore could not be said to be in lawful possession is therefore held to be perverse and unsustainable – Similarly, the conclusion that the identity of the suit property was not established is also held to be perverse – Held, Trial Court and the High Court both posed unto themselves the wrong question venturing to decide the title of the appellants, and arrived at an erroneous conclusion -- Impugned orders dismissing the suit and the appeal are therefore not sustainable – Appeal allowed.

(Para 14-16)

A. Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882), Section 122, 23 – Gift deed – Acceptance by donee --  Section 122 of the TP Act, 1882 neither defines acceptance, nor does it prescribe any particular mode for accepting the gift – Aforesaid fact can be ascertained from the surrounding circumstances such as taking into possession the property by the donee or by being in the possession of the gift deed itself -- Only requirement stipulated here is that, the acceptance of the gift must be effectuated within the lifetime of the donor itself – Being an act of receiving willingly, acceptance can be inferred by the implied conduct of the donee.

(Para 24-27)

B. Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882), Section 122, 23 – Gift deed – Acceptance by donee --  Recitals clearly indicate that donor intended to part with ownership and possession immediately after the execution of the gift deed -- Mutation entry in the Revenue Record clearly reflects that half portion of appellant's land was bestowed as a gift by the appellant to his son through a registered instrument of gift -- Statement rendered by the appellant-donor before the Court of Additional District Magistrate indicates that the donee was already a major at the time of the execution of the gift deed and after execution of the gift deed the donee started cultivating on the same -- Aforesaid statement of the appellant-donor is completely supported by the statement made by the donee before the Court of Additional District Magistrate -- Donee clearly stated that, the land was transferred to him by virtue of gift deed was under his possession and he was cultivating the same – Held, therefore, there was an acceptance of the gift by the donee during the lifetime of the donor.

(Para 28-32)

C. Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882), Section 122, 23 – Registered Gift deed – Challenge to -- Respondents failed to bring on record any evidence to rebut the fact that the donee was in enjoyment of the property -- Plausible view was taken that, it was a transfer between a father and a son and there was a valid acceptance of the gift when the donee-son started living separately -- Lastly, it ought to be noted that apart from the point of acceptance by the donee, since the deed is registered, bears the signature of the donor and has been attested by two witnesses, the requirements u/s 123 of the TP Act, 1882 have been satisfied.

(Para 33)

D. Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (Rajasthan Act No. 3 of 1955), Section 30D, 30DD – Transfer by gift deed -- Protection from land ceiling -- If the appellant succeed in its endeavor to establish that the transfer was covered u/s 30DD of the Tenancy Act of 1955, then such transferred land has to be exempted from computation of confiscable land, irrespective of the fact that it falls within the ceiling limit as prescribed under Section 30D of the Tenancy Act of 1955.

(Para 43)

E. Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (Rajasthan Act No. 3 of 1955), Section 30C, 30D, 30DD -- Land ceiling area u/s 30C -- Transfer by registered gift-deed on 19.12.1963 – Protection from land ceiling -- It must be taken into consideration that, the aforesaid transfer was executed way before the cut-off date stipulated u/s 30DD i.e. 31.12.1969 -- Therefore, the registered gift deed dated 19.12.1963 was a bona fide transfer squarely covered within the ambits of Section 30DD, which intended to protect the rights of agriculturalists – Held, transfer is not invalid as it stands protected as per the provision of Section 30DD of the Tenancy Act of 1955.

(Para 46)

F. Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holding Act, 1973 (Rajasthan Act No. 11 of 1973), Section 6 – Bonafide transfer – Protection from land ceiling -- Transfer of land by gift deed on 19.12.1963 -- There is no finding that the gift deed was actuated upon any extraneous consideration -- Hence, it constitutes a bona fide transfer which are exempted from the rigors of Section 6 of the Ceiling Act of 1973.

(Para 48)