(A) Constitution of India,1950 Article 136-Special leave petition-Concurrent finding-Interference-Suit for possession-The suit was decreed and upon holding the plaintiff as owner of encroached land handing over the same after demolition of structures-There are concurrent findings of Trial Court, First Appellate Court as also the High Court on the questions of ownership over the land and its encroachment by appellant-Appellant has failed to show any valid ground for interference-Held-That concurrent finding of fact does not call for interference in an appeal under Article 136 of Constitution of India in absence of any valid ground for interference-Suit rightly decreed-Appeal dismissed.(Paras 4 and 22)
(B) Transfer of Property Act,1882 Section 51-Applicability-‘right to require’-Improvements made by trespasser-Held-A bare perusal of S. 51, TP Act would reveal that in order to acquire the ‘right to require’ in the manner provided there under one should be a ‘transferee’ within the meaning of TP Act-S. 51 is not applicable. (Para 9)
(C) Transfer of Property Act,1882 Section 51-Applicability/Scope–Improvements made by trespasser-Held-That S. 51 applies in terms to a transferee who makes improvements in good faith on a property believing himself to be its absolute owner-S. 51 is not applicable.(Para 9)
(D) Transfer of Property Act,1882 Section 51-Applicability/Scope–Held-That in order to attract S.51 of TP Act the occupant of land must have held possession under colour of title, his possession must not have been by mere possession of another but adverse to title of true owner and he must be under the bone fide belief that he has secured good title to the property in question and is the owner thereof. (Para 10)
(E) Transfer of Property Act,1882 Section 51-Transferee- Improvements made by trespasser-Concurrent finding-Held-That it was after encroaching upon land and ignoring the absence of any title that appellant made structures thereon at his own risk-The appellant cannot be treated as a ‘transferee’ within the meaning of TP Act and for the purpose of S. 51, TP Act-Appeal dismissed. (Para 11)
(F) Specific Relief Act,1963 Sections 6 and 38-Suit for possession-Against trespasser-Held-Merely because some structures are erected by the opposite party ignoring the objection, that too without any bona fide belief, denying the relief of recovery of possession would tantamount to allowing a trespasser/ encroacher to purchase another man’s property against that man’s will-Appeal dismissed.(Para 21)
(G) Specific Relief Act,1963 Section 6-Suit for possession-Doctrine of laches or acquiescence-Applicability-Suit filed within period of limitation provided under Limitation Act-Held-That, the doctrine of laches or acquiescence has no place to defeat the right of plaintiff to obtain the relief on his establishing his title-Further held-That in such a situation in absence of any misrepresentation by an act or omission, the mere fact after making objection the plaintiff took some reasonable time to approach the Court for recovery of possession cannot, at any stretch of imagination, be a reason to deny him the relief him of recovery of possession of the encroached land on his establishing his title over it.(Para 21)