Parmanand Vs. Balram Bahri

Parmanand vs Balram Bahri

Type Court Judgment Court Delhi Decided Jul 23, 2014

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1161732

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1161732
Court: Delhi High Court
Judge: Valmiki J. Mehta
Decided On: Jul 23, 2014
Subject: Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue: Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Parmanand

Respondent

Balram Bahri

Excerpt

.....breach of contract and readiness and willingness of the plaintiff/petitioner/purchaser. since, admittedly the possession is stated to be lost by the defendant/respondent during the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff/petitioner will always have the benefit of the doctrine of lis pendens. i may however note that, whereas the defendant/respondent claims that possession of the suit property has been illegally taken from him, the plaintiff/petition claims that possession has not been taken away by the said krishan lal dutta etc., and the new facts are being stated only to deny the relief of possession when the suit for specific performance is decreed.3. since the aspect of possession will be an aspect of lis pendens under section 52 of the transfer of property act, 1882 this aspect need not be brought in by means of subsequent pleading and hence the impugned order with consent is set aside with the observations that the facts as stated by the defendant/respondent in the application for amendment are brought to the knowledge of the plaintiff/petitioner, and with respect to the said facts, whatever rights the plaintiff/petitioner has, will be examined in the course of the suit.4. i hasten to clarify that bringing on record the facts is not a reflection of the truth of those facts, and, aspects of merits as also the other factual aspects including the so-called new facts, will be considered by the court if so required, at the stage of final disposal of the suit in accordance with law.5. petition is allowed subject to the aforesaid observations by setting aside the impugned order dated 03.3.2011, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. valmiki j.mehta, j.july23 2014 ka

Full Judgment

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CM(M) 396/2011 & C.M.No.6877/2011 (for stay) % JULY23 2014 PARMANAND ......Petitioner Through: Mr.Aly Mirza, Advocate. VERSUS BALRAM BAHRI Through: ...... Respondent Mr.P.K.Rawal, Advocate. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.

MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. By the impugned order dated 03.3.2011 while disallowing the amendment application filed by the respondent/defendant, the respondent/defendant was directed to file a subsequent pleading to incorporate subsequent events. The subsequent events pertain to the stand of the respondent/defendant that during the pendency of the suit, the possession of the suit property has been illegally taken away by three persons, namely Sh. Krishan Lal Dutta, Sh. Parveen Kumar and Sh. Bijender Kumar.

2. In a suit for specific performance, issues which arise are as to the existence of agreement to sell, breach of contract and readiness and willingness of the plaintiff/petitioner/purchaser. Since, admittedly the possession is stated to be lost by the defendant/respondent during the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff/petitioner will always have the benefit of the doctrine of lis pendens. I may however note that, whereas the defendant/respondent claims that possession of the suit property has been illegally taken from him, the plaintiff/petition claims that possession has not been taken away by the said Krishan Lal Dutta etc., and the new facts are being stated only to deny the relief of possession when the suit for specific performance is decreed.

3. Since the aspect of possession will be an aspect of lis pendens under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 this aspect need not be brought in by means of subsequent pleading and hence the impugned order with consent is set aside with the observations that the facts as stated by the defendant/respondent in the application for amendment are brought to the knowledge of the plaintiff/petitioner, and with respect to the said facts, whatever rights the plaintiff/petitioner has, will be examined in the course of the suit.

4. I hasten to clarify that bringing on record the facts is not a reflection of the truth of those facts, and, aspects of merits as also the other factual aspects including the so-called new facts, will be considered by the court if so required, at the stage of final disposal of the suit in accordance with law.

5. Petition is allowed subject to the aforesaid observations by setting aside the impugned order dated 03.3.2011, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. VALMIKI J.

MEHTA, J.

JULY23 2014 KA

Same Court & Year Delhi · 2014 Same Parties Parmanand vs Balram Bahri Same Subject Land Acquisition Same Judge Valmiki J. Mehta