AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.H. Joshi, J.—Heard learned advocate Shri P.S. Lotlikar for the Petitioners.
Petitioners are before this Court challenging the Order dated 9.6.2009 passed by the learned Civil Judge Senior Division at Panaji in Special Civil Suit No. 102/2007/B.
It was an application praying that a decree be drawn on defendant''s admission of plaintiffs'' claim.
The foundation of the plaintiff''s claim about alleged admission by the defendant can be gathered from the contents of paras No. 2,3 and 4 of application dated 7.2.2009 which read as follows:
The said property came to belong to Mr. Antonio Victor Couto, and his wife, the plaintiff No. 1.
Their marriage was without any ante nuptial agreement and, therefore ,in the regime of communion of assets, she acquired co-ownership rights to everything, the said Antonio Victor Couto owned and possessed, including the property and house described in paragraph � 1 of the plain.
The said house on the eastern side facing the road has an entrance, with one room on either side.
In fact in the year 1984 � 1985 the room on the right hand side of the entrance on the eastern side, was provided with an additional door facing the road on the est, by changing of one window into door. The other two doors were internal doors existing earlier, connecting this room to the rest of the house.
The application subject matter has been opposed by the defendant on the grounds which reads as follows:
Defendant has categorically stated in the written submissions that defendant is the Lesso of the suit premises. The very fact stated in this application have been disputed in the written submissions.
Plaintiff claims a decree on the ground that defendant is a licencee. Such an admission is not there in the written submission and on the contrary the case of the defendant is that she is a lessee.
In order to ascertain the substance of the matter, this Court had called up learned advocate for the appellant to refer to the recital of the agreement through which the defendant has inducted in the suit.
Admittedly, the said of agreement of lease copy is dated 11.9.1985 and its page 58 of the paper book, of this Writ Petition.
Perusal of this agreement discloses that it has been executed by Mr. Antonio Victor Couto.
When, the plaintiff No. 3 does not dispute that this agreement is executed by her husband Antonio, now she may not be able to plead that renewal of lease was done by her husband without her consent and make said plea a basis for relying on the legal possession that husband cannot create a lease or license without consent of the wife.
Therefore, sole foundation of the plaintiffs'' contention that admission of the fact of lease/licence by plaintiff No. 3''s husband would be sufficient ground that the decreeing plaintiffs'' suit, as said ground is not based on strong footing and is debatable. Alleged admission is not a clear admission to be so acted upon for passing a decree on admission.
In the background that the original agreement of lease was signed by her husband of plaintiff No. 3, and plaintiffs'' do not alleged that said agreement was without the consent of plaintiff No. 3 or was authority from her, now urging that renewal by husband is without the consent of plaintiff No. 3 cannot be a foundation for decree on admission. The contention subject matter is a far fetched argument.
Petitioners'' reliance on Charanjit Lal Mehra and Others Vs. Smt. Kamal Saroj Mahajan and Another, is of no avail due to peculiar facts of the case.
The writ petition therefore does not call for any indulgent and it is dismissed.