SARNATH MUKHERJEE Vs. FRANCIS KUOK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff and defendant No.1 are joint owners of agricultural land comprising in khasras No.257 min.(03- 09), 470 min (02-08), 473 min (01-13), 474 (00-14), 475 (00- 14), 476 min (00-02), 479 (00-09), 480 (00-12), 481 (01-02), 482 (01-05), 493 min (01-03), 494 min (01-04), 497 min (01-04) totally admeasuring 15 bighas and 19 biswas, situated in the Revenue Estate of Village Bhatti, Tehsil Hauz Khas (Mehrauli), New Delhi. THE suit land is said to be governed by Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954. Defendant No.1 entered into an agreement dated 20th May, 2010 followed by a supplementary agreement dated 8th December, 2010 to sell his share in the suit land to defendant No.2 i.e. M/s New Era Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. for a total consideration of Rs.2.58 crore, out of which a sum of Rs.75 lac has been paid to him.

(2.) THE case of defendants No. 2 & 3 is that pursuant to the aforesaid agreements, defendant No.3 was authorized by defendant No.1 to look after his holding in the suit land as his caretaker. It is also alleged that after entering into the agreement, defendant No.3 is in joint possession of the suit land with the plaintiff.

(3.) THUS, whereas according to defendants No. 2 & 3, defendant No.3, who is a director of defendant No.2 company was appointed as caretaker by defendant No.1 and is in joint possession of the suit land along with the plaintiff, the case of defendant No.1 is that he never appointed defendant No.3 as the caretaker and he did not deliver possession of any part of the suit property to him despite having entered into an agreement to sell his share in the suit land to defendant No.2. There is absolutely no document which would indicate that defendant No.3 was appointed by defendant No.1 as the caretaker in respect of his holding in the suit land. There is no document evidencing delivery of possession of any part of the suit land by defendant No.1 to other defendant No.2 or defendant No.3. In fact, this is not even the case of defendants No. 2 & 3 that the possession was delivered to either of them by defendant No.1, their case being only this much that since defendant No.3 was appointed as caretaker, he came in joint possession of the suit land along with the plaintiff. Assuming the averments made by defendants No. 2 & 3 to be correct, that by itself does not mean that defendant No.2 and/or defendant No.3 came in joint possession of the suit land along with the plaintiff. Even if, defendant No.3 was appointed as the caretaker by defendant No.1, the possession continued to be jointly with him (defendant No.1) and the plaintiff, since the caretaker looks after the property on behalf of the person who appoint him as caretaker and he can never be said to be in legal possession of the property which is entrusted to him in his capacity as a caretaker. Therefore, the possession, if any, of defendant No.2 and/or defendant No.3 cannot be said to be a legal possession.