TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether restitution of possession could be granted under the inherent powers of the court after the earlier order had been set aside; (ii) whether the appellants could establish any right to possession on the basis of the unregistered agreement and section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.
Issue (i): Whether restitution of possession could be granted under the inherent powers of the court after the earlier order had been set aside.
Analysis: Restitution under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is available only where it is necessary for the ends of justice and where the court's act has caused injury that ought to be undone. On the materials before the court, the appellants had no lawful right to remain in possession once the earlier decision on forfeiture was taken into account. Restoring them would not correct an injury, because they would still be trespassers and the respondents were the lawful possessors under a valid lease.
Conclusion: Restitution was not warranted under the inherent powers of the court, and the claim failed.
Issue (ii): Whether the appellants could establish any right to possession on the basis of the unregistered agreement and section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.
Analysis: The agreement relied upon was treated as creating a transfer of interest that required registration. Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 protects rights of estoppel between the parties to the transaction, but does not create a real right or confer a transferable interest enforceable against third parties. As the agreement was unregistered, it could not validate the appellants' claim to possession or defeat the existing lease in favour of the respondents.
Conclusion: The appellants acquired no enforceable right to possession, and this ground also failed.
Final Conclusion: The appeal was dismissed because the appellants were not entitled to be restored to possession and no legal basis existed for disturbing the respondents' possession.
Ratio Decidendi: Restitution under the court's inherent powers will not be ordered where the applicant has no lawful right to possession, and an unregistered transfer of interest does not create an enforceable title or possession right against third parties.
TaxTMI 
