IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO 3372 OF 2003.  

Balkrishna S. Dalwale (Dead) by Lrs.          …Appellants

Versus

Vithabai C. Rathod (Dead) by Lrs. & Ors.  …Respondents  

J U D G M E N T

Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.

1. This  appeal  has  been  preferred  against  the  

judgment and decree dated 18.10.2001 passed in Second  

Appeal No. 191 of 1991 by the High Court of Bombay by  

which the Second Appeal filed by the appellants against  

the  judgment  and  decree  of  the  First  Appellate  Court  

dated 31.12.1990 passed in Civil Appeal No.828 of 1987  

by which it reversed the judgment and decree of the Civil

Court  dated  18.2.1987  passed  in  Civil  Suit  No.558  of  

1975 filed by the respondents, has been dismissed.  

2. Facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal  

are  that  one  Smt.  Ratnabai  Shankar  Dalwale  had  

inherited the suit property from her father. She had four  

daughters, two of them namely, Champabai and Sitabai  

died  long  back  i.e.  prior  to  the  date  of  receiving  the  

property by Smt. Ratnabai Shankar Dalwale. The original  

owner, Ratnabai Shankar Dalwale died on 2.5.1965 and  

her husband Shankar Dalwale had died in 1952. Thus,  

at the time of her death, Smt. Ratnabai Shankar Dalwale  

had  two  daughters,  namely  Vithabai  and  Krishnabai,  

who acquired the suit properties by Will dated 24.6.1963,  

executed by Smt. Ratnabai Shankar Dalwale.  After the  

death  of  Smt.  Ratnabai  Shankar  Dalwale,  her  two  

daughters  Vithabai  and  Krishnabai  

(respondents/plaintiffs)  (hereinafter called ‘respondents’)  

become absolute owners of the properties. The Will stood  

proved upto the High Court and attained finality.   The  

2

said  Vithabai  and  Krishnabai,  sisters  permitted  their  

deceased  sister  Champabai’s  son  Balkrishna  

(appellant/defendant)  (hereinafter  called  the  ‘appellant’)  

to occupy two rooms free of rent out of love and affection.  

Subsequently,  respondents,  the  original  owners  sent  a  

notice  to  said  Balkrishna-appellant  to  vacate  the  said  

premises  on  21.2.1975.  However,  Balkrishna-appellant  

vide reply dated 10.3.1975  resisted his eviction claiming  

ownership  of  the  House  No.621,  Ganesh  Peth,  Pune.  

Respondents,  the  original  owners  of  the  suit  property,  

namely  Smt.  Vithabai  and  Smt.  Krishnabai  filed  Civil  

Suit No.558 of 1975 before the Civil Court, Pune in 1975  

for eviction of the said Balkrishna-appellant.   

3. During the pendency of the suit, a document was  

prepared on 27.10.1981 purported to be a partition suit,  

wherein  the  appellant-Balkrishna  had  been  given  the  

accommodation  which  he  was  occupying  and  some  

additional  open  space  for  lavatory and  bathroom.  

However,  the  document  was  duly  signed  by  the  

3

respondents-plaintiffs  and their  sons  also  appeared  as  

marginal witnesses. Appellant-Balkrishna also signed the  

said document as a witness.  It was an unstamped and  

unregistered document.  The appellant-  Balkrishna filed  

the  said document dated  27.10.1981 by amending the  

written statement on 1.4.1986 and claiming the title of  

that part of the property on the basis of the same.

4. The trial court vide its judgment and decree dated  

18.2.1987 dismissed the suit relying very heavily on the  

document  dated  27.10.1981,  which  made  it  clear  that  

appellant was not the licensee and therefore, question of  

revoking the licence and further asking the court to evict  

him could not arise.

5. Being  aggrieved,  respondents  filed  Civil  Appeal  

No.828  of  1987  which  has  been  allowed  by  the  First  

Appellate  Court  vide  judgment  and  decree  dated  

31.12.1990.   The  First  Appellate  Court  held  that  the  

purported  compromise-cum-partition  deed  was  

unregistered, unstamped and not signed by the appellant  

4

as  a  party  but  merely  as  a  witness.   Thus,  the  said  

document dated 27.10.1981 did not create any right and  

title in favour of the appellant nor the said document was  

admissible in evidence.

Being  aggrieved,  the  appellant-Balkrishna  filed  

Second Appeal No.191 of 1991 which has been dismissed  

vide judgment and order dated 18.10.2001. Hence, this  

appeal.  

6. Shri Makarand D. Adkar, learned counsel appearing  

for the appellant, has fairly conceded that the appellant-

Balkrishna, is not entitled to any title in the suit property  

for the reason that he could not claim any partition as he  

was  not  the  co-sharer,  nor  the  said  document  dated  

27.10.1981 could be held to be a gift deed as it remained  

unstamped  and  unregistered.  His  only  contention  has  

been that if during the pendency of the suit the original  

respondents have, out of love and affection allowed the  

appellant  permissible  possession of  suit  property,  their  

conduct  estopped  them  from  seeking  his  eviction.  

5

Therefore, the judgments of the High Court as well as the  

First Appellate Court have to be reversed and the suit is  

liable to the dismissed.  

7. On the contrary, Shri A.S. Bhasme, learned counsel  

appearing for the respondents, has vehemently opposed  

the  appeal  contending  that  the  appellant  had  been in  

possession  of  the  property  for  more  than  35  years  

without  making  any  payment.  The  building  is  in  a  

dilapidated  condition  and  requires  repair  and  

maintenance. The appellant has never paid any amount  

either as rent or for maintenance. The family members of  

the  respondents/original  plaintiffs  have  grown  up  and  

they  need  the  accommodation  for  them.  The  

accommodation might have been given out of  love and  

affection to the original defendant-Balkrishna. However,  

he is no more alive and the present appellants cannot  

claim  any  benefit  of  such  permissible  use  of  the  suit  

property for an indefinite period. The appeal is liable to  

be dismissed.  

6

8. We have considered the rival submissions made by  

learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.  

9. Before  the  High  Court,  appellant  raised  the  sole  

question  regarding  the  nature  of  the  document  dated  

27.10.1981  and  all  other  issues  had  been  given  up.  

Admittedly, the said document does not create any legal  

title in favour of the appellant.  Appellant had signed the  

said document as a witness and not as a party.  The said  

document had neither been exhibited nor was admissible  

in  evidence.   This  document  cannot  be  termed  as  

contract as the appellant was not a party to it.   Even,  

otherwise, terms of a contract can be read and enforced  

only  in  consonance  with  law.  (See:  Union  Territory,  

Chandigarh  Administration  &  Ors.  v.  Managing  

Society, Goswami, GDSDC,  (1996) 7 SCC 665; and  V.  

Karnal Durai v. District Collector, Tuticorin & Anr.,  

(1999) 1 SCC 475). Thus, it would not confer any right or  

interest in appellants’ favour.  At the most, it can be held  

that  out  of  love  and affection the  respondents/original  

7

plaintiffs had permitted the appellant/ original defendant  

to occupy the premises. However, as none of the original  

parties  is  alive,  the  said  love  and  affection  does  not  

subsist. The present appellants being the descendants of  

the  original  defendant cannot  take  the  benefit  of  such  

magnanimity  shown  by  the  original  plaintiffs  to  the  

original defendant.  

10. In view of the above, no legal  issue is involved in  

this appeal. Therefore, we do not see any cogent reason  

to interfere with the impugned judgment and order of the  

High  Court.  The  appeal  is  liable  to  be  dismissed  and  

stands dismissed.   

However,  in  the  facts  and  circumstances  of  the  

case,  as  the  appellants  had  been  living  in  the  suit  

property for the last 35 years and it may be difficult for  

them to get a suitable accommodation in Pune,  they may  

hand  over  the  vacant  and  peaceful  possession  of  the  

premises on or before 31.10.2011. The appellants shall  

8

file an undertaking before this Court within a period of  

four weeks in this regard.  There shall be no order as to  

costs.      

                               ……………………………..J.                                  (P. SATHASIVAM)

                                         ……………………….........J.                                           (Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN) New Delhi, October 18, 2010

9