2. Hikmat Ali Khan vs Ishwar Prasad Arya AIR 1997 SC 864
Case Name: Hikmat Ali Khan vs Ishwar Prasad Arya Citation: AIR 1997 SC 864
Parties:
- Hikmat Ali Khan (Plaintiff)
- Ishwar Prasad Arya (Defendant)
Facts:
The plaintiff, Hikmat Ali Khan, filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendant, Ishwar Prasad Arya, in the court of civil judge, claiming that he was the owner of a property situated in Lucknow and the defendant had been constructing a building on the said property without his consent.
Facts in Issue:
- Ownership of the property in question
- The defendant's unauthorized construction on the plaintiff's property
Order:
The Supreme Court held that the plaintiff had failed to prove his ownership of the property and hence, his claim for permanent injunction was rejected. The defendant's construction on the property was found to be unauthorized and the court directed the defendant to remove the construction within a specified time frame. The defendant was also ordered to pay the costs of the litigation to the plaintiff.
Explanation:
The case of Hikmat Ali Khan vs Ishwar Prasad Arya was about the ownership of a property and the unauthorized construction on the said property by the defendant. The plaintiff claimed that he was the owner of the property and the defendant was constructing a building on it without his consent. The defendant argued that he was the rightful owner of the property and that the plaintiff had no right to seek an injunction.
The Supreme Court held that the plaintiff had failed to prove his ownership of the property and therefore, his claim for permanent injunction was rejected. The defendant's construction on the property was found to be unauthorized and the court directed the defendant to remove the construction within a specified time frame. The defendant was also ordered to pay the costs of the litigation to the plaintiff.
The case highlights the importance of proving ownership of a property and the consequences of unauthorized construction on the same. It also lays down the principle that the burden of proof lies with the person who claims ownership and that failure to prove the same will result in rejection of the claim.
