AJEENKYA DY PATIL

UNIVERSITY

School of Law
Case Analysis
Transfer of Property Law

Submitted to Submitted By

Adwitiya Tiwary Satyamraj Chaubey

School of La BA LLB / 3rd Year

2021-B-15062003
Name of the Parties:
Krishna Ram Mahale v. Shobha Venkat Rao1

Introduction:
In this the appellant has filled the case against the order passed by the Division Bench, of the
Bombay High Court in First Appeal No. 283 of 1969. The appeal was filled under the Article
1362 of the Indian Constitution, that is the Special Leave grant to the Supreme Court. The
appellants contest that the decree passed by the Trial Bench is arbitrary and against the
contract formed between the appellant and the respondent. The crux of the case was that a
person who is in the possession of a property cannot be removed from there unless by the due
process of law. The suit was first filled by the respondent in the Bombay High Court under
the section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. The decision was in the favor of the petitioner then
and hence this appeal was filed.

Facts of the Case:

 On December 25, 1956, Mrs. Shobha Venkat Rao, the plaintiff made an agreement
with Krishna Ram Mahale the defendant number 3 for conducting the business of
restaurant on the property of the defendant, where the possession was to be given to
the plaintiff.
 The agreement was for 5 years with the option of renewal of the same. The agreement
referred to the defendant 3 as the owner of the property while the plaintiff is referred
to as the conductor. The term "conductor" also included the heirs, administrators and
executors of the plaintiff. The agreement also stated that all furniture, posts, and
utensils that were present in the property would remain under the ownership of the
defendant 3.
 In exchange for the business, the plaintiff agreed to pay defendant 3 a certain royalty
payment.

1
AIR 1989 SC 2097
2
Special leave to appeal by the Supreme Court:
Notwithstanding anything in this Chapter, the Supreme Court may, in its discretion, grant special leave to appeal
from any judgment, decree, determination, sentence or order in any cause or matter passed or made by any court
or tribunal in the territory of India
  The plaintiff formed an agreement with the defendant 1 for conducting the business at
the same place and for the same the defendant would pay the plaintiff Rs. 700 every
month.
 On January 10, 1959, a notice was sent to the plaintiff instructing him to resume
possession of the restaurant to the defendant 3 or else the defendant 3 may proceed in
the court of law.
 The plaintiffs denied receiving any such notices, and filed a suit under Section 6 3 of
the Specific Relief Act.
 After completion of the trial the court held that defendant 3 had unlawfully acquired
the possession of the said property without the consent of the plaintiff.
 The Trial Court ordered a decree in favour of the plaintiffs and asked the defendant to
pay profits at the rate of Rs.310 per month till the plaintiff is put in possession.
 The Defendant approached the High Court where the appeal was dismissed and
hence, defendant 3 appealed before the Supreme Court.

Issues of Case:
i. The case was filed by the appellant to overturn the decision passed by the Bombay
High Court.
ii. Whether the possession taken back by the defendant 3 actually unlawful? This issue
was contested in the appeal.
iii. The respondent also contested that the appellant, was the defendant number 3 in the
case filled at the Bombay High Court had alluded with the defendant number 1 and 2
at that time.

Analysis:
1. The main issue of the case occurs to be the unlawful accusation of the property by the
defendant 3 and denying the plaintiff possession the property without following the
due course of law. As per defendant 3, they had send a letter addressed to plaintiff on
May 18, 1958 at the address of the restaurant asking her to return the possession of
the land or else they may proceed to the court of law. On February 12, 1959 a second
letter was addressed to the plaintiff at the same address stating that there was no reply

3
Suit by person dispossessed of immovable property. —If any person is dispossessed without his consent of
immovable property otherwise than in due course of law, he or any person claiming through him may, by suit,
recover possession thereof, notwithstanding any other title that may be set up in such suit.
 given the first letter and they would take the possession of the property on 15 th
February, 1959. There was no response to this letter as well and the defendant 3 took
the possession of the property on that date mentioned in the letter.
2. The contention from the plaintiff was that there was ill intention of the defendant and
hence they were so keen on taking the possession the land. The plaintiff said she
never received letter from the defendant because the letter was addressed to the
restaurant’s address and the defendant very well knew that the plaintiff would not be
at the restaurant and hence she would never read the letter. The plaintiff also stated
that the defendant 3 had alluded with the defendant 1 and defendant 2 for their own
benefits, as during the preceding the in front of the division bench only the advocate
of defendant 3 was arguing.
3. The facts were not clearly presented by the advocate of the defendant 3 during the
hearings. The main questioned asked by the bench was that what exactly occurred on
15th February, 1959. In a affidavit filed on March 26, 1959 the defendant said that the
possession the property was given with the knowledge and consent of the plaintiff. In
the written statement filled by the defendant 3, he said that the possession of the
property was given to him by the defendant 1 and defendant 2 on behalf of the
plaintiff. The written submission filed by the defendant 1 stated that the he was never
in possession of the property, as the agreement between the plaintiff and defendant 1
was never acted upon. Even during the hearing, while giving the evidence the
defendant 3 gave different versions as to how he obtained the possession of the
property, he also said while giving the evidence that he was entitled to take the
possession of the property without following the course of law. The statement given
by the peon was also very unsatisfactory and was not similar to what other statements
were given.
4. Due to the inconsistent statements given by the defendants and the advocate, the
divisional bench gave the decision in the favour of the plaintiff. The Bombay High
Court also dismissed the appeal filed by the defendant 3.
5. The Apex Court of the country was the last chance for defendant 3 to contest against
the lower courts decisions. The supreme court first analysed the agreements term
between both the parties, it explicitly mentioned that the defendant 3 was the owner of
the property and the plaintiff was the conductor of the business. Another vital aspect
of the case concerns the notice sent to the Plaintiff by Defendant 3 on January 10,
 1959. The notice instructed the Plaintiff to return possession of the restaurant
premises, with the implication of legal action if she failed to comply.

Analysis:
 In this case the plaintiff was the person who had suffered a legal injury, firstly the
property which was under her possession was taken by unlawful means, secondly the
other parties had colluded against her for their own personal benefits. In the first
agreement it was clearly mentioned that the agreement was for 5 years but it could be
extended even after the expiration of the said the term, the agreement nowhere
mentioned the possession of the property will go back to the defendant 3 after the end
of 5 years. Hence for taking the possession from the plaintiff the defendant should
have taken the consent of the plaintiff.
 The defendant was the real owner of the property but he had transferred the interest
and the right to possess the property to the plaintiff, for which the plaintiff was paying
a royalty to the defendant 3, which makes it the legal right of the plaintiff to work on
the property or to transfer the property to any other third party as per law.
 The defendants in this case had alluded with each other for their benefits so as to they
don’t face any consequences when the case was filled. Defendant 1 similarly colluded
with others for his benefit, the agreement between the plaintiff and defendant 1 clearly
stated that the possession of the property would be transferred to him for running the
business and the same agreement was enacted, but when the case filled before the
Division Bench, the defendant 1 said that the agreement was never acted upon and he
had not received the possession the property adding to that, the letter by defendant 3
was addressed to the plaintiff was sent to the restaurant, the defendant 1 had the
possession of the property hence he should have had the knowledge of the letter, he
could have informed the plaintiff regarding the same and the matter would have
resolved a long time ago.
 During the whole trial, the facts were not correctly stated or even the fact stated by
the defendant 3 were not the same every time. He told different things different times
and changed his own statement a lot of time, which created a confusion in the mind of
the Bench.
  One more suspicious thing was that the defendant 2 was present in the court during
the whole trial but never entered into the witness box, neither the defendant 2 and
defendant 1 were represented by their advocates before the bench.

Legal Acts involved:

There were several legal acts involved in this case, those were:
a) Transfer of Property Act: This act dealt with the transfer of the possession of the
property from the defendant to the plaintiff and the rights involved of the plaintiff.
b) The Indian Contract Act: This act dealt with the agreement formed between the
plaintiff and the defendant 3 and the plaintiff and defendant 1.
c) Specific Relief Act: This act dealt with the filling of the case by the plaintiff under the
section 6.
d) Constitution of India: Under Article 136 of the Indian Constitution, the defendant
filled the appeal in the Supreme Court.

Judgement:
The judgement was given in the favour of the plaintiff/ respondent in this case. The court said
that even if defendant 3 is the owner of the property, they cannot deprive the plaintiff without
following the due course of law. The court said that “Injunction is possessory remedy”. The
plaintiff was held be a licensee and the conductor of the business, In India, persons are not
permitted to take forcible possession of a property without obtaining the necessary possession
from a Court. The true owner has the right to dispossess a trespasser if he or she has been
successful to take possession without knowledge of true owner. The plaintiff was not a
trespasser as she had entered the premises as a licensed restaurant operator. The defendant if
wanted the possession of the property he should have followed the due course of law. If
defendant would have filed a case in the court on the same matter, then the court could have
given a decision in their favour and they would have got the property. The defendant is hence
now liable to pay the amount decided by the court.
Conclusion:
The case of Shobha Venkat Rao vs. Krishna Ram Mahale underscores the importance of legal
recourse in disputes over possession and property rights. The Supreme Court's decision
reaffirms the principle that even if initial possession is without authority, the true owner must
resort to legal remedies for repossession. Additionally, the Court's appointment of a Receiver
reflects the disapproval of the Defendant No. 3's conduct and attempts to circumvent the legal
process. In conclusion, the case serves as a legal precedent emphasizing the significance of
adhering to lawful procedures in property disputes and the consequences of unlawful
possession and dispossession. This decision by the judiciary clearly states that a person
cannot be deprived of the possession of any property if they hold it lawfully and gives more
importance to lawful possession as compared to ownership. The defendant in this case was
similarly held at fault was made to pay compensatory amount to the plaintiff.