Kumari Sushila Yadav vs Lt Col. (Retd.) Atul Chaudhary & … on 14 January, 2016

1. The respondent does not dispute that the appellant is the owner of a
plot of land bearing Municipal No.E-39A, East of Kailash, New Delhi –
110065. Whereas appellant claims that the respondent No.1, who is
appellant’s nephew, was given permissive possession by her to reside in a
portion of the building constructed on the plot shown in red colour in the
plan annexed to the plaint and having revoked the permission she is entitled
to a decree for possession and mesne profits; the claim of respondent No.1 is
that under an oral permission granted by the appellant, from his own funds,
he constructed the portion of the building which is in his occupation;
possession whereof is sought and that the oral permission was with the

FAO (OS) No.292/2015 Page 1 of 18
understanding that the respondent No.1 would be the ultimate owner thereof.

Source: Indian Kanoon

Leave a Reply