Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2015 (8) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (8) TMI 1542 - DELHI HIGH COURTSuit for declaration to be the owner of property - Possession of property - restraint from parting with possession of the suit land. HELD THAT:- A perusal of the original plaint would evince that there is no admission made by the appellant that it is not in possession of the suit land. The plaint has been very inartistically drafted and unfortunately the lawyer has not even used the word that originally Amir Chand and Brij Lal and thereafter Matwal Chand held the properties on behalf of the plaintiff as trustees, pending formal constitution of the plaintiff as a body incorporate. The entire pleadings in the plaint, meaningfully read, pleads so. But yet the counsel did not formally incorporate said aspect in the pleadings. It is trite that it is the substance of the pleadings which matters and not the form. Meaningfully read, the suit is based upon the plea that the suit property was purchased by Amir Chand and Brij Lal for the benefit of the members of Jhang Biradari Association and the beneficiaries would be such persons who become members of the plaintiff and were migrants to India from Jhang upon partition. It is apparent that while giving ink to the thought of the author i.e. drafting the prayer in the application seeking interim relief, giving reflection to the thought of the plaintiff, the counsel has in a mechanical way prayed that the defendants be restrained from parting with possession of the suit land. A right to sue accruing has not to be confused with the cause of action. The wrong alleged, when committed, infringing upon a right would give rise to a right to sue. Simultaneously would accrue the cause of action to sue. The facts pleaded for purposes of cause of action have a nexus to the prayer and the pleadings to bring out the cause of action would not be the pleadings to determine when did the cause of action accrue or when did the right to sue commence. Limitation would commence from the date when the right to sue accrued - It is settled law that a cue can be had from the Indian Trust Act, 1882 for understanding the various terms as well as the salient features attached to a Trust. Once a Trust always a Trust, is the trite proposition of law, like one another proposition, 'once a mortgage always a mortgage'. The Trust property cannot be allowed to be dissipated in any manner - It is a common principle that whenever a Trustee dies his legal representatives, not necessarily only the legal heirs of the deceased trustee, could rightly manage the property till a proper trustee is appointed. Even a trustee de son tort could safeguard the trust property. There are two elements involved in the concept possession, namely, 'corpus possessionis' and 'animus possidendi'. The owner need not necessarily be in physical possession at all times. Besides, in the case of a Trust the physical possession by the trustee would actually be a case of custody of the property being with the trustee and legal possession being with the trust - There was no need to seek any cancellation of the sale-deed dated May 16, 1962 because in the plaint the said sale-deed has not been challenged. Meaningfully read, the pleading is that Amir Chand and Brij Lal executed the sale-deed in question in favour of Matwal Chand because Matwal Chand was the Secretary of the Association and he held the property as a trustee. Impugned order is set aside - application filed by the appellant to amend the plaint is allowed.
|