Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2018 (2) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (2) TMI 1417 - HC - Indian LawsSuit for recovery of possession and damages - Since the defendant failed to vacate the suit property, therefore, the present suit for possession and damages came to be filed - whether a disputed question of fact arises that the plaintiff is not the owner of the suit property? - Held that: - the suit property falls as one of the properties at Serial no. 1(a) of the Schedule II of the Scheme of Arrangement approved vide order 3.1.1983 by this Court. Therefore, in my opinion, once there is finality to the order of this Court dated 3.1.1983 accompanied by the Scheme of Arrangement, and existence of which is not denied and could not be denied by the defendant, plaintiff has to be held to be the owner of the suit property. Defendant has contended that it is not the plaintiff but one M/s Birla Textile Mills a partnership firm which is the owner of the suit property, however law is well settled that vague pleadings do not constitute sufficient pleadings. The defendant is a legally well-versed person. Defendant wants to cross all limits of dishonesty because the defendant wants to most illegally and dishonestly continue in possession of the suit premises although the defendant has no legal right to the same. Defendant being a legal person has endeavoured his best to create legal and factual defences as per the written statement, however surely law is that much substantive that a dishonest defendant should not be allowed to succeed on illegal grounds, and therefore, it is ordered that this application is allowed. Decree is passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
|