Krishna Ram Mahale (Dead) by his LRs vs Mrs. Shobha Venkat Rao (1989) 4 SCC 131
Court:
Supreme Court of India
Coram:
Hon’ble Justice K. N. Singh and Hon’ble Justice M. H. Kania
Date of Judgment:
9 August 1989
Facts:
On December 25, 1956, Mrs. Shobha Venkat Rao entered into an agreement with Krishna Ram Mahale to conduct a restaurant business (Meenakshi Bhuvan, later known as Central Cafe Udipi) owned by him. The agreement granted the plaintiff license to run the restaurant for 5 years, with a renewal option. The plaintiff was to pay a royalty and was referred to as the “conductor” of the business, while the defendant was referred to as the owner.
Later, a supplementary agreement was entered on January 11, 1958, whereby Defendant No. 1 was allowed to conduct the restaurant by paying Rs. 700 monthly to the plaintiff. On January 10, 1959, a notice was purportedly sent by Defendant No. 3 to the plaintiff instructing her to return possession. The plaintiff claimed to have never received such notices. Subsequently, the defendant took possession of the restaurant forcefully.
The plaintiff filed a suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, claiming she was unlawfully dispossessed.
Issues:
- Whether the possession of the restaurant by Defendant No. 3 was unlawful?
- Whether a person in possession of property can be dispossessed by the owner without following due process of law?
Arguments:
- Plaintiff: Argued that she had lawful possession as a licensee and was dispossessed without consent and without legal recourse. She denied receiving any notice and claimed she was unaware of the dispossession until after it happened.
- Defendant: Claimed variously that he had been given possession either directly or through other defendants. He argued that the license had expired, and hence the plaintiff had no right to continue possession.
Observations:
- The Supreme Court found inconsistencies in the defendant’s version of events and deemed the testimony of his peon unreliable.
- It held that the plaintiff’s possession, even if under a license that had expired, was not illegal.
- The Court reaffirmed the principle that a person in peaceful possession cannot be dispossessed without following the due process of law, irrespective of whether the possessor has a valid title.
Judgment:
- The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal of the defendant.
- Held that the defendant had taken possession of the restaurant and business unlawfully and behind the back of the plaintiff.
- Declined to entertain the appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution due to the defendant’s mala fide conduct.
- Directed that the plaintiff was entitled to restoration of possession and also to the profits as decreed by the Trial Court.
- Costs were awarded throughout in favour of the plaintiff.
Legal Principle:
Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Protects possession from unlawful dispossession. Even a rightful owner must resort to legal remedies and cannot take the law into his own hands to dispossess someone in possession.
Conclusion:
The case firmly establishes the doctrine that no person, not even the rightful owner, can dispossess another in possession without following the due process of law. The judgment is a cornerstone for protection of possession and upholds rule of law over might.
