UTTAM CHAND Vs. NATHU RAM
LAWS(SC)-2020-1-34
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on January 15,2020

UTTAM CHAND Appellant
VERSUS
NATHU RAM Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

MANICKA KONAR VS. VADIVEL KONAR [LAWS(MAD)-2021-6-59] [REFERRED TO]
KAMESHWAR PATHAK VS. MANBODH [LAWS(CHH)-2021-3-82] [REFERRED TO]
KHARGA BAHADUR RIZAL VS. SURAJ RAI [LAWS(SIK)-2021-6-2] [REFERRED TO]
GUJARAT STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION THROUGH DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER VS. ISMAILBHAI FAKIRBHAI SHEIKH [LAWS(GJH)-2021-10-71] [REFERRED TO]
MONIKA TYAGI VS. SUBHASH TYAGI [LAWS(DLH)-2021-12-23] [REFERRED TO]
RAUNAK SINGH VS. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY [LAWS(DLH)-2021-11-97] [REFERRED TO]
DILIP KUMAR MAHOBIA VS. SMT. SUMITRA RANI BAGGA [LAWS(CHH)-2022-4-8] [REFERRED TO]
MAYAMMA VS. P NAGARAJ [LAWS(KAR)-2022-4-10] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

HEMANT GUPTA,J. - (1.)Plaintiff is in appeal before this Court aggrieved against judgment and decree passed by the High Court of Delhi on 18 th February, 2011 whereby, the defendants second appeal was allowed and the suit of the plaintiff for possession on the basis of title was dismissed.
(2.)The plaintiff filed a suit for possession on the basis of purchase of suit property from the Managing Officer, Department of Rehabilitation, Government of India in a public auction held on 21st March, 1964. The certificate of sale was issued thereafter on 4th January, 1965. The plaintiff filed a suit for possession on 17 th February, 1979 alleging the defendants to be in an unauthorised possession of the suit property and who have refused to vacate the same.
(3.)The defendants in the written statement denied that the plaintiff is the owner of the property. The defendants asserted that their house existed on the property in question for more than the last two centuries. The grandfather of the defendants was said to be in possession of the property as owner, thereafter their father one Tara Chand and now all the defendants are in possession of the property as owners. It was denied that the property was ever vested with the Managing Officer and, therefore, it was claimed that the Managing Officer has no authority or jurisdiction to auction the property in question. Therefore, the plaintiff has no interest, right or title in the property.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.