Skip to main content

Principal of Custodia Legis or In the custody of the law explained

In Haji Hanif Hakam Vs. Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal at Kolkata & Ors., the plaintiff being assignee of the residue of the unexpired period of the leasehold interest in the suit property submitted that Joint Receivers were appointed by the Hon’ble High Court for taking actual physical possession of the suit property and the suit premise is, therefore, custodia legis. The third respondent is aware of such possession by the Joint Receivers yet without obtaining the leave of the Court appointing the Joint Receivers, had filed a proceeding RDDB Act. Subsequently the suit property was put up for sale and sold by the Recovery Officer and therefore the sale is illegal, null and void.

The third respondent submitted that the Joint Receivers are not in actual physical possession of the immovable property. Although, the initial order was for actual physical possession, the same was later modified to mean that the Receivers will take constructive possession. Therefore, it cannot be said that, the Receivers are in actual physical possession of the suit property. He has relied upon 1996 Volume 11 Supreme Court Cases page 376 (Anthony C. Leo v. Nandlal Bal Krishnan & Ors.) and 2002 Volume 2 Calcutta High Court Notes page 522 (Bengal Peerless Housing Development Co. Ltd. v. Gopeswar Prasad Agarwal & Ors.) for the proposition that, when the Receiver is not in an actual physical possession, then, the dealings with regard to an immovable property cannot be struck down on the ground of the breach of the principles of custodia legis.

The Calcutta High Court held that the Division Bench in Bengal Peerless Housing Development Co. Ltd. (supra) has considered Kanhaiyalal (supra) as well as Anthony C. Leo (supra).

Court appointing a Receiver over a property to take actual physical possession thereof becomes custodia legis of such property. However, appointment of a Receiver does not mean that the property vests in the Receiver or the Court, even pendente lite. A person claiming any paramount right in respect of the property has to obtain the leave of the Court in custodia legis to establish such right. Such leave is required when the Court has appointed a Receiver to take physical possession of the property. A proceeding initiated without the leave of Court appointing the Receiver, when the Receiver is not in physical possession of the property, does not stand vitiated by absence of leave.

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Dishonour of cheques - Jurisdiction and cause of action explained

In a landmark judgment, Hon'ble Supreme Court went to some length to define the cause of action and jurisdiction of cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. While deciding in 2014 STPL(Web) 499 SC 1, Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr., the Hon'ble court said, one of the main issues faced by the court (a) from which stage do we consider a offence under Section 138 to have been caused (b) Where would the jurisdiction of the court lie if the cheque was drawn in city A and presented dishonored in City B ? After discussion on various past decisions, the Hon'ble court finally affirmed, " To sum up: (i) An offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is committed no sooner a cheque drawn by the accused on an account being maintained by him in a bank for discharge of debt/liability is returned unpaid for insufficiency of funds or for the reason that the amount exceeds the arrangement made with the bank. (...
Post a Comment
Read more

How to know if a temple/mandir is Public or Private?

In Shri Ram Mandir Indore v. State of Madhya Pradesh, the appellant had contended before the Supreme Court that the Ram Mandir in question is a private temple established by predecessor Gurus and that the properties had been given to the suit temple as Inam and Ram Das was not a mere pujari but the Mahant of the said temple entitled to manage and administer the temple and the suit properties. The appeal was against the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court which had declared the temple as public and the suit property vested in the Deity; and Ram Das and then Bajrang Das are only pujaris and not Mahant-Manager of the temple. The Supreme Court agreeing with the High Court noted the following points :- 1) In 2013, Madhya Pradesh Government published a Directory containing names of all public temples in District Ujjain updating till 31.12.2012, wherein the said temple has been shown as a public temple and Bajrang Das and Ram Das are only shown to be the pujaris. 2)...
Post a Comment
Read more

Loss of earning capacity, and not percentage of disability, must decide compensation, says HC

While computing compensation claims of accident victims, the victim's loss of earning capacity shall outweigh the percentage/extent of his disability, the Madras high court has felt. Justice R Mahadevan, enhancing the compensation payable to an injured driver by Rs 2 lakh, said: "In cases for compensation, it is not the disability, which is partial or total, alone that matters, it is the loss in earning capacity as a result of accident that is to be considered." R Murali, driver of a mixed concrete vehicle, met with an accident in January 2009 and suffered injuries in hip, right leg and ankle. He claimed loss of 100% earning capacity and sought appropriate compensation along with 12% interest rate. However, as the disability certificate issued by a doctor pegged the percentage of his disability at 60%, the deputy commissioner of labour-II, awarded Rs 3.12 lakh as compensation, by fixing the monthly income at Rs 4,000. Aggrieved by the poor package, Murali filed the...
Post a Comment
Read more