Court affirms respondent's ownership of Vijay Nagar property and revocation of appellant's license, dismisses HUF claims due to lack of evidence.
In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court has upheld the ownership rights of Praveen Chawla over a disputed property located at B-25A, Vijay Nagar, Delhi, dismissing the appeals filed by Kalyan Dass. The court confirmed that Chawla is the rightful owner of the property, based on a registered perpetual lease deed and a release deed, and emphasized that assertions of the property being a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) property lacked evidential support.
Justice Mini Pushkarna presided over the appeals, which challenged a judgment from the District and Sessions Judge (North), Rohini Courts, Delhi. The appellant, Kalyan Dass, had sought to establish ownership of a portion of the property based on claims of it being part of an HUF and also contested the revocation of a license agreement by Chawla. However, the High Court found no material evidence supporting the appellant’s HUF claims, reinforcing that the burden of proof lies on the party asserting such a status.
The court noted that the original allotment of the property in 1950 was on a rental basis to the respondent's father, Ladha Ram, with proprietary rights conferred only after the purchase was completed and a perpetual lease deed executed in 1971. Subsequently, all other legal heirs of Ladha Ram relinquished their rights in favor of Chawla, who later converted the property to freehold status.
Regarding the license agreement, the court found it to be revocable, rejecting Dass's contention that the agreement was irrevocable due to a concurrent will. The will, initially executed in favor of Dass, had been lawfully cancelled by Chawla, and the court held that a license does not create any proprietary interest in the property.
The court also addressed the issue of mesne profits, noting that while the respondent claimed enhanced profits due to the property’s commercial potential, no concrete evidence was presented to support such claims. The court granted the respondent liberty to initiate separate proceedings to establish mesne profits for the relevant period.
In a comprehensive analysis, Justice Pushkarna emphasized that the testimonies of interested witnesses, such as family members of the parties involved, were scrutinized with caution due to inherent contradictions and adversarial interests.
The judgment reinforces the legal principle that ownership and property rights must be backed by concrete evidence, particularly in claims involving family property. The decision also underscores the revocable nature of license agreements in property disputes unless substantial proof of irrevocability is presented.
Bottom Line:
Ownership and possession of property - License agreements and their revocability - Claim of HUF property must be proven with evidence, mere assertions not sufficient.
Statutory provision(s): Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Limitation Act, 1963; Evidence Act, 1872
Kalyan Dass v. Praveen Chawla, (Delhi) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2836565
