TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Land title dispute resolved in favor of plaintiff, affirming right to possession.</h1> <h3>Ram Barai Singh Versus Tirtha Pada Misra (Vice-versa)</h3> The plaintiff successfully obtained a declaration of title and recovery of possession of the lands in dispute, which were originally held under a ... - Issues Involved:1. Declaration of Title and Recovery of Possession2. Validity of Tenancy by Holding Over3. Assent of Landlords under Section 116 of the Transfer of Property Act4. Heritability and Transferability of TenancyIssue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Declaration of Title and Recovery of Possession:The plaintiff-respondent brought a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession of the suit lands, which was decreed by both the lower courts. The plaintiff alleged that the lands were originally held by his predecessor, Mahadev Singh, under a fixed-term tenancy which continued with the landlords' assent even after its expiry. Upon Mahadev's death, the tenancy devolved on his heirs, who sold the lands to the plaintiff. The defendant No. 1, a tenant in one of the rooms, denied the plaintiff's title and claimed that the lands were settled with defendant No. 2 by the original landlords after Mahadev's lease expired. Both courts found in favor of the plaintiff, affirming his title and right to possession.2. Validity of Tenancy by Holding Over:The core legal issue was whether Mahadev Singh's continued possession after the expiry of his lease constituted a tenancy by holding over under Section 116 of the Transfer of Property Act. Both lower courts concluded that Mahadev continued to possess the property with the landlords' assent until his death, and this possession was inherited by his heirs and subsequently transferred to the plaintiff. The courts relied on precedents, including Safar Ali Master v. Abdul Majid and Bengal National Bank Ltd. v. Raja Janoki Nath Roy, to support their conclusion that Mahadev's tenancy by holding over was valid and heritable.3. Assent of Landlords under Section 116 of the Transfer of Property Act:The appeal challenged the inference of landlords' assent to Mahadev's continued possession. The court examined the legal requirements under Section 116, which necessitate the landlord's assent, either express or implied, for a tenancy by holding over. The court clarified that mere continuance of possession is insufficient; there must be evidence of the landlord's assent, which can be inferred from circumstances beyond the acceptance of rent. The court found that Mahadev's long possession, the payment of municipal taxes, the construction of new structures, and the landlords' lack of protest constituted sufficient evidence of implied assent.4. Heritability and Transferability of Tenancy:The court affirmed that a tenancy by holding over is both heritable and transferable under the Transfer of Property Act. Upon Mahadev's death, his heirs inherited the tenancy, and the plaintiff acquired it through a valid assignment. The court noted that the modes of determination of a tenancy are prescribed in Section 111 of the Act, and death of the lessee does not terminate a month-to-month tenancy unless specified by contract. The court cited relevant precedents to support the heritability and transferability of such tenancies, confirming the plaintiff's title.Conclusion:The appeal was dismissed, and the court upheld the lower courts' decisions affirming the plaintiff's title and right to possession. The court directed the parties to bear their own costs due to the complexity of the legal issues involved.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
