Legal Reference Library

The Supreme Court, in Behram Tejani vs. Azeem Jagani, has reiterated that a person holding the premises gratuitously or in the capacity as a caretaker or a servant would not acquire any right or interest on the property and even long possession in that capacity would be of no legal consequences. The bench comprising Justice Pinaki Chandra Ghose and Justice Uday Umesh Lalit restored a city civil court order, which had rejected the prayer for interim injunction restraining the defendants from from dis-possessing plaintiff from the suit premises without following due process of law. It was the case of defendants that the maternal grand-mother of the plaintiff was merely allowed to use and occupy the suit premises by the defendants out of love and sympathy without any fees or compensation and that the suit premises belonged to them. Setting aside the high court order, the court referred to Maria Margarida Sequeira Fernandes and others v. Erasmo Jack De Sequeira (Dead) through LRS, wherein ...

In Ramvilas (Dead) Thr. Lrs. Vs. Karim Khan, the question before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India was whether whenever a conveyance of the property by a Sale Deed is accompanied by a separate document, it has to be taken as re-conveyance and it was not a mortgage. The Hon'ble court held that in Bhaskar Waman Joshi (D) and Ors. v. Shrinarayan Rambilas Agarwal, this Court has succinctly considered the question as to whether a transaction ostensibly of a sale may be regarded as a mortgage and held that it is one of intention of the parties to be gathered from the language of the deed interpreted in the light of the surrounding circumstances.

In Nandkishor Savalaram Malu (Dead) Through Lrs. Vs. Hanumanmal G. Biyani (D) Thr. Lrs. & Ors., the matter was eviction of a partnership firm which was the lessee/tenant and whether employees as well as the partners have to be made parties to the suit. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that " we are of the considered opinion that neither the Firm nor their partners and nor defendant no.1 had any legal right to remain in possession of the suit house. The reason being that so far as the Firm and its partners were concerned (defendant Nos. 2 to 9), they being the tenant rightly suffered the decree for payment of arrears of rent and eviction under the Rent Act and so far as defendant no.1 was concerned, he was neither an owner of the suit house nor a tenant inducted by the appellants and nor a licensee but was held to be an employee of the Firm and a rank trespasser in the suit house. 24) The legal effect of such eviction decree under the Rent Act was that the possessio...

2014 STPL(Web) 532 SC SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (T.S. THAKUR, C. NAGAPPAN AND ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, JJ.) SINGH RAM (D) THR. L.RS. Appellants VERSUS SHEO RAM & ORS. Respondents Civil Appeal No.5198 of 2008 with Civil Appeal No. 7941 of 2014 @ S.L.P.(C) No. 26861 of 2008, Civil Appeal No. 1113 of 2009, Civil Appeal No. 7942 of 2014 @ S.L.P.(C) No. 2097 of 2009, Civil Appeal No. 7943 of 2014 @ S.L.P.(C) No. 6355 of 2009 Civil Appeal No. 5562 of 2009, Civil Appeal No. 7944 of 2014 @ S.L.P.(C) No. 22604 of 2009, Civil Appeal No. 7947 of 2014 @ S.L.P.(C) No. 23963 of 2009, Civil Appeal No. 8551 of 2009, Civil Appeal No. 7948 of 2014 @ S.L.P.(C) No. 25422 of 2011, Civil Appeal No. 7951 of 2014 @ S.L.P.(C) No. 34380 of 2011, Civil Appeal No. 7953 of 2014 @ S.L.P.(C) No. 1274 of 2012, Civil Appeal No. 7954 of 2014 @ S.L.P.(C) No. 1275 of 2012, Civil Appeal No. 5256 of 2012, Civil Appeal No. 7955 of 2014 @ S.L.P.(C) No. 19048 of 2012, Civil Appeal No. 7956-58 of 2014 @ S.L.P.(C) Nos. 772-...