TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
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>Defendant loses claim, deemed trespasser, Plaintiffs regain possession. Motion dismissed.</h1> The Court declared that the Defendant had no right, title, or interest in the suit flat and was in unlawful occupation as a trespasser. The Plaintiffs ... - Issues Involved:1. Ownership and legal rights of the Trustees.2. Defendant's claim of being an heir and lawful occupant.3. Admission of facts by the Defendant in another proceeding.4. Application of Order 12 Rule 6 and Order 15 Rule 1 of the CPC.Summary:1. Ownership and Legal Rights of the Trustees:The suit was filed by the Trustees of a Trust dated 28th June 1994, claiming ownership of Flat No. 7-C, Woodland Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., Mumbai, bequeathed to the Trust under a Will dated 5th July 1997. The Will, which has been probated, created a life interest for the deceased's wife, forbidding her from selling, transferring, or creating any third-party rights. The Plaintiffs sought a declaration that the Defendant had no right, title, or interest in the suit flat and was a trespasser, seeking recovery of possession and mesne profits.2. Defendant's Claim of Being an Heir and Lawful Occupant:The Defendant claimed to be the heir of the deceased, brought up and educated by the deceased and his wife as foster parents, and claimed lawful occupation of the suit flat. He filed another suit for a declaration of being the heir and sole owner of the suit flat. However, he did not challenge the Will or probate thereof. The Defendant also denied the Plaintiffs' status as trustees and ownership of the suit flat, despite admitting the deceased's ownership.3. Admission of Facts by the Defendant in Another Proceeding:The Defendant admitted in a criminal complaint filed in the Court of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mumbai, that the suit flat was owned by the Trust and that he was not the owner. This admission contradicted his claims in the written statement. The Plaintiffs discovered this admission through an affidavit filed by the Defendant in another proceeding.4. Application of Order 12 Rule 6 and Order 15 Rule 1 of the CPC:The Court applied Order 12 Rule 6 of the CPC, which allows for judgment on admissions made in pleadings or otherwise, and Order 15 Rule 1, which allows for judgment when parties are not at issue on any question of law or fact. The Court found that the Defendant's admissions in the criminal complaint negated his denials in the suit, making further adjudication unnecessary. The Court granted the Plaintiffs' prayers (a) and (b) for declaration and recovery of possession based on the Defendant's admissions.Conclusion:The Court declared that the Defendant had no right, title, or interest in the suit flat and was in unlawful occupation as a trespasser. The Plaintiffs were granted recovery of possession. The Notice of Motion No. 1509 of 2011 taken out by the Defendant was dismissed as it did not survive in view of the decree passed.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
