TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (3) TMI 1139
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....20 years ago. Hence, it is submitted that his mother, plaintiff No.2 inherited his share to the said property and accordingly, the plaintiffs are the absolute owners. 3. It is stated that about 14 years ago defendants approached the father of plaintiff No.1 late Sh.Ganpat Ram and sought permission to take shelter in the suit property for a few months. Late Sh.Ganpat Ram is stated to have given the said approval inasmuch as he permitted the defendants to reside in one of the rooms in the suit property for some time. On the request of the defendants the duration of stay kept extending. In July 2010 the plaintiffs along with the other family members asked the defendants to vacate the only room in the possession of the defendants as the plaintiffs required the suit property for the purpose of wedding in the family. Sh.Ganpat Ram, the father of plaintiff No.1 died on 20.08.2010. It is further stated that instead of vacating the suit property as requested by the plaintiffs, the defendants sometime after February 2011 filed a suit in the District Court for permanent injunction. The Civil Judge vide order dated 31.05.2012 dismissed the suit. On 18.10.2012 the appeal along with applicati....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oth the defendants under Order 10 read with Section 165 of the Evidence Act. 6. On enquiry, it is informed that neither of the defendants are present in the Court today. 7. Both the defendants are directed to personally appear before this Court on 24th May, 2013." 6. Thereafter on 28.05.2013 and 13.08.2013 the defendants did not appear in person. They appeared on 05.09.2013 but sought an adjournment as their counsel was not available. The matter was adjourned to 09.10.2013. On that date counsel for the defendants stated that defendant No.2 is hospitalized and defendant No.1 is with him. Another opportunity was given to the defendants to appear in court to record their statements under Order 10 CPC and the matter was renotified for 08.11.2013. On 08.11.2013 again the defendants did not appear in person. Arguments were heard on the contention of the learned counsel for the plaintiffs that no issue arises as there are no material pleas in the written statement and the suit as far as the relief of possession is concerned is liable to be decreed. Judgment was reserved. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs submits that the defendants, on a plain reading....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....de with him in the suit property. The defendants were also taking care of not only the day to day needs of the said late Ganpat Ram but also looking after him in all other aspects of life. ..." 11. As far as the rights of the plaintiff to the suit property are concerned, the defendants along with their written statement themselves have filed photocopy of documents being General Power of Attorney executed by Sohan Dutt Gupta in favour of Bhagat Ram and Laxman Singh (plaintiff No.1) (Ex.D-1), Agreement dated 12.04.1985 between Sohan Dutt Gupta and the said Bhagat Ram and Laxman Singh (Ex.D-2), cash received for a sum of Rs. 40,000/- executed by Sohan Dutt Gupta in favour of Bhagat Ram and Laxman Singh (Ex.D-3) and affidavit of Sohan Dutt Gupta dated 12.04.1985 stating that possession of the suit property has been handed over to the said Shri Bhagat Ram and Shri Ganpat Ram (Ex.D-4). In the course of admission/denial the plaintiffs have admitted the said documents which were hence marked accordingly. 12. It would follow that as per documents executed in favour of the plaintiff filed by the defendant himself, which have been admitted by the plaintiff, plaintiffs, namely, Laxman Si....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1993: [1993]3SCR944 has observed that, "payment of license fee is not an essential attribute for subsistence of license". 44. Let us see as to how the expressions "license" and "licensee" are understood, used and spoken in common parlance. It is often said that a word, apart from having the meaning as defined under different statutes, has ordinary or popular meaning and that a word of everyday usage it must be construed in its popular sense, meaning that sense which people conversant with the subject matter with which the statute is dealing would attribute to it. A "license" is a power or authority to do some act, which, without such authority, could not lawfully be done. In the context of an immovable property a "license" is an authority to do an act which would otherwise be a trespass. It passes no interest, and does not amount to a demise, nor does it give the licensee an exclusive right to use the property. [See Puran Singh Sahani v.Sundari Bhagwandas Kriplani MANU/SC/0541/1991: [1991]1SCR592]. Barron's Law Dictionary has given the meaning of word "licensee" to mean "the one to whom a license has been granted; in property, one whose presence on the premises is not ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es AIR 2006 SC 3569, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in paragraphs 14 and 15 held as under:- "14. The "possession" in the instant case relates to second limb of the Section. It is couched in negative terms and mandates that a person who comes upon any immoveable property by the license of the person in possession thereof, shall not be permitted to deny that such person had title to such possession at the time when such license was given. 15. The underlying policy of Section 116 is that where a person has been brought into possession as a tenant by the landlord and if that tenant is permitted to question the title of the landlord at the time of the settlement then that will give rise to extreme confusion in the matter of relationship of the landlord and tenant and so the equitable principle of estoppels has been incorporated by the legislature in the said section." 15. Similar is the view taken by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Sri S.K. Sarma vs. Mahesh Kumar Verma AIR 2002 SC 3294. 16. In Vishal Builders Pvt. Ltd. vs. Delhi Development Authority (supra), this court held that no person who comes into possession of an immovable property on the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....-I heir. It is obvious that the propounders of the Will forgot the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act. Hence no title, as claimed, can pass to defendant No.2. 20. The rights of a licencee to stay in possession of the property have been dealt by the Division Bench of this High Court in the case of Chandu Lal vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi AIR 1978 Del 174. Relevant portion of paragraph 26 of which is reproduced as under:- "26....... A mere licensee has only a right to use the property. Such a right does not amount to an easement or an interest in the property but is only a personal privilege to the licensee. After the termination of the license, the licensor is entitled to deal with the property as he likes. This right he gets as an owner in possession of his property. He need not secure a decree of the Court to obtain the right. He is entitled to resist in defence of his property the attempts of a trespasser to come upon his property by exerting the necessary and reasonable force to expel a trespasser.............." 21. Reference may also be had to the judgment in the case of Sant Lal Jain vs. Avtar Singh (1985) 2 SCC 332 where the Hon'ble Supreme held as fol....