KARNAVATI UNIVERSITY

BEFORE
HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI

UNDER THE INDIAN CONTRACT ACT 1872

NEW INDIA MOTOR PVT LTD.

(PETITIONER)

V.
SMT. S.P. DUGGAL
(RESPONDENTS )
 PROJECT REPORT ON
New Indian Motors v. Smt.SP. Duggal 1982
Petitioner

Submitted to ;
Mr. Arpit Vihan

Submitted by ;
Name ;Priyal Agarwal
Priyank choudary
Ritti jaynish ruparelia
Enrollment No. 20220401062
20220401063
20220401064
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.LISTOFABBERRVIATIONS……………………………………
2. INDEX OF
AUTHORITIES……………………………………….
3. STATEMENT OF
JURISDICTION………………………………..
4.STATEMENTOF FACTS………………………………………….
5.STATEMENTOFISSUES………………………………………….
6. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
…………………………………….
7.ARGUMENTS……………………………………………………
…..

a) Whether the lease agreement between the appellant and

Smt. Satyavati Duggal was still valid and enforceable.
b) Whether the appellant had been regularly paying the rent to
Smt. Duggal or her legal heirs.
c) Whether the appellant had acquired any rights over the
property by way of adverse possession.
d) Whether the evidence presented by the appellant was
sufficient to support its claims of rightful possession of the
property.
e) Whether Smt. Duggal and others had provided sufficient
evidence to prove their ownership of the property and their right
to possession.
f) Whether the lower court had erred in its decision and
whether the High Court should exercise its power to set aside the
lower court's decision.

8.

PRAYER………………………………………………………………
………………………
List of abbreviation

No. Abbreviation Full Forms

1. H.C. HIGH COURT

2. DEL DELHI

3. ORs. ORGANISATION

4. C.A. COURT OF APPEAL

5. CPC CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

No. Indian Cases Page No.

1. Om Prakash gupta v. vijay kumar chopra and ors. 3
2. Bishan Singh v. Khazan Singh AIR 1958 SC 838 3
3. Munshi Ram v. Delhi Administration 4
4. Major Jagjit Singh & Ors. v. Jaswant Singh & Ors 4
5. Haji Mohammad v. Mahboob Ali & Ors. 3

Sites Refered
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/933419/
https://www.latestlaws.com/judgements/delhi-hc/1979/march/1979-latest-caselaw-52-del
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/58117e922713e1794789e767
https://indiankanoon.org/docfragment/933419/?formInput=invalid%20mortgage

Statue refred
The Indian Contract Act, 1872
The Transfer of Property Act, 1882
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
The Limitation Act, 1963

Books
Landmark Judgments That Changed India" by Asok Kumar Ganguly and Maloy Krishna Dhar (2018)
The Transfer of Property Act, 1882" by Dr. Avtar Singh (2019
Principles of the Law of Contract" by Justice G.P. Singh (2020)
The Indian Contract Act" by Dr. S.N. Misra (2019)
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908" by Ratanlal and Dhirajlal (2020)
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The petitioner humbly submit the memorial approaching the hon’ble

high court of Delhi under article 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act,
1958 and Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
It sets forth the facts , contentions, and arugments in the present case
in the jurisdiction of the petitioner.
 STATEMENT OF FACTS

 The appellant, New India Motors Pvt. Ltd., entered into a lease agreement
with Smt. Satyavati Duggal for a property situated at 6/11, Rohtak Road,
Delhi.

 The lease agreement was for a period of 10 years, commencing from

August 1, 1962, and ending on July 31, 1972.

 The appellant contends that the lease agreement was valid and
enforceable and that it had been regularly paying rent to Smt. Duggal or
her legal heirs.

 The appellant has been in possession of the property for a significant

period of time and contends that it has acquired rights over the property
by way of adverse possession.

 The appellant has presented evidence in the form of documents related to

ownership of the property and agreements and transactions that had taken
place between the parties to support its claims of rightful possession of
the property.
 QUESTIONS PRESENTED

1. Whether the lease agreement between the appellant and Smt. Satyavati
Duggal was still valid and enforceable.
2. Whether the appellant had been regularly paying the rent to Smt. Duggal
or her legal heirs.
3. Whether the appellant had acquired any rights over the property by way
of adverse possession.

4. Whether the evidence presented by the appellant was sufficient to support

its claims of rightful possession of the property.
5. Whether Smt. Duggal and others had provided sufficient evidence to
prove their ownership of the property and their right to possession
6. Whether the lower court had erred in its decision and whether the High
Court should exercise its power to set aside the lower court's decision.
 SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS

1. Whether the lease agreement between the appellant and Smt.

Satyavati Duggal was still valid and enforceable.
The lease agreement between the appellant and Smt. Satyavati Duggal was valid
and enforceable. There is no evidence to suggest that the lease agreement had
expired or had not been renewed.
2.Whether the appellant had been regularly paying the rent to Smt. Duggal
or her legal heirs.
The appellant has been regularly paying rent to Smt. Duggal or her legal heirs,
and the evidence presented by the appellant supports this claim.
3.Whether the appellant had acquired any rights over the property by way
of adverse possession.
The appellant has acquired rights over the property by way of adverse
possession, as it has been in possession of the property for a significant period
of time and has fulfilled the necessary requirements for claiming such rights.

4.Whether the evidence presented by the appellant was sufficient to

support its claims of rightful possession of the property.
The evidence presented by the appellant is sufficient to support its claims of
rightful possession of the property. The documents related to ownership of the
property and agreements and transactions that had taken place between the
parties establish a valid title to the property.

5. Whether Smt. Duggal and others had provided sufficient evidence to

prove their ownership of the property and their right to possession.
Smt. Duggal and others have failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove their
ownership of the property and their right to possession. The sale deed and
mutation register entries presented by them do not establish a valid title to the
property.
6.Whether the lower court had erred in its decision and whether the
High Court should exercise its power to set aside the lower court's
decision.
The lower court erred in its decision and the Delhi High Court should exercise
its power to set aside the lower court's decision.
 PLEADINGS

Whether the lease agreement between the appellant and Smt. Satyavati Duggal
was still valid and enforceable.
The lease agreement between the appellant, New India Motors Pvt. Ltd., and
Smt. Satyavati Duggal was the subject of contention in the case of "New India
Motors Pvt. Ltd. vs Smt. S.P. Duggal And Ors." The key issue was whether the
lease agreement was still valid and enforceable, despite the transfer of
ownership of the property in question to Smt. S.P. Duggal and others.
As the appellant, New India Motors Pvt. Ltd. argued that the lease agreement
was still valid and enforceable, the following are the detailed arguments in
support of their position:
The lease agreement was a legally binding contract between the appellant and
Smt. Satyavati Duggal, and it was not affected by the transfer of ownership of
the property to Smt. S.P. Duggal and others. The lease agreement clearly
specified the terms and conditions of the lease, including the duration of the
lease and the rent to be paid, and these terms remained valid irrespective of the
change in ownership.
The lease agreement had not been terminated by either party, and there was no
provision in the agreement for the automatic termination of the lease in the
event of a change in ownership. Therefore, the appellant had the right to
continue to occupy and use the leased premises in accordance with the terms of
the lease agreement.
The transfer of ownership of the property did not affect the appellant's rights as
a tenant, as the appellant was a bona fide tenant who had taken possession of the
property in good faith, and had been paying rent regularly in accordance with
the terms of the lease agreement. The transfer of ownership did not in any way
affect the appellant's right to continue to occupy and use the property.
The appellant had invested a substantial amount of money in improving the
property and setting up a business on the premises, and had built up a valuable
business goodwill over the years. To terminate the lease agreement now would
result in significant financial loss and hardship to the appellant, and would be
contrary to the principles of natural justice.
In conclusion, the lease agreement between the appellant and Smt. Satyavati
Duggal was still valid and enforceable, despite the transfer of ownership of the
property to Smt. S.P. Duggal and others. The appellant had the right to continue
to occupy and use the property in accordance with the terms of the lease
agreement, and any attempt to terminate the lease would be unjust and unfair.
Whether the appellant had been regularly paying the rent to Smt. Duggal or
her legal heirs.
In the case of "New India Motors Pvt. Ltd. vs Smt. S.P. Duggal And Ors.", the
issue of whether the appellant had acquired any rights over the property by way
of adverse possession was an important factor in determining the validity of the
lease agreement. As the appellant had claimed adverse possession of the
property, the following are the detailed arguments in support of their position:
The appellant had been in possession of the leased premises for a considerable
period of time, which was more than the statutory period required for adverse
possession. Adverse possession is a legal concept where a person can acquire
ownership of a property by occupying it for a certain period of time without the
owner's permission. The statutory period for adverse possession in India is 12
years.
The appellant had been paying the rent regularly and had invested a substantial
amount of money in improving the property, which demonstrates their intention
to occupy and use the leased premises. This further supports the argument that
the appellant was in adverse possession of the property.

There was no evidence to suggest that Smt. S.P. Duggal or her legal heirs had
taken any steps to reclaim the property or evict the appellant from the premises
during the period of the alleged adverse possession. This indicates that they had
either acquiesced to the appellant's possession of the property or were not aware
of the appellant's possession of the property.
The appellant had been using the leased premises for a commercial purpose,
which means that they had been occupying the property openly and
continuously for business purposes. This further strengthens the argument that
the appellant had acquired the property by way of adverse possession.
In conclusion, the appellant had acquired rights over the property by way of
adverse possession. The fact that the appellant had been in possession of the
property for a considerable period of time, had paid rent regularly, had invested
in improving the property, and had been using it for a commercial purpose all
support the claim of adverse possession. Therefore, the appellant had a valid
claim to the property, and the lease agreement with Smt. Satyavati Duggal was
no longer valid or enforceable.
 Whether the appellant had acquired any rights over the property by way of
adverse possession.
As the appellant in the case of "New India Motors Pvt. Ltd. vs Smt. S.P. Duggal
And Ors.", the statement of jurisdiction can be summarized as follows:
The High Court of Delhi has jurisdiction over the case as the leased premises
are located within the territorial jurisdiction of the court.
The appeal is filed under Section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, which
provides for an appeal against the order of the Rent Control Tribunal to the
High Court of Delhi. Therefore, the High Court of Delhi has jurisdiction to hear
and decide the appeal.
The appellant is a resident of Delhi and the respondents, Smt. S.P. Duggal and
her legal heirs, are also residents of Delhi. As the parties involved are within the
territorial jurisdiction of the High Court of Delhi, the court has jurisdiction over
the case.
The subject matter of the case involves the validity of the lease agreement and
the rights of the parties to the leased premises. This falls within the jurisdiction
of the High Court of Delhi, which has the power to hear and decide disputes
relating to property rights and landlord-tenant relationships.

In conclusion, as the appellant, New India Motors Pvt. Ltd. has established the
jurisdiction of the High Court of Delhi to hear and decide the appeal. The court
has jurisdiction over the case because the parties involved are within its
territorial jurisdiction, the appeal is filed under a relevant statute, and the subject
matter of the case falls within the court's jurisdiction.
 PRAYER
In light of the above arguments and authorities, the appellant respectfully prays
that this Honorable Court:
Sets aside the judgment of the lower court.
Holds that the lease agreement between the appellant and Smt. Satyavati Duggal
is valid and enforceable.
Holds that the appellant has been regularly paying rent to Smt. Duggal or her
legal heirs.
Holds that the appellant has acquired rights over the property by way of adverse
possession.
Declares that the evidence presented by the appellant is sufficient to support its
claims of rightful possession of the property.
Declares that Smt. Duggal and others have

AND/OR
Pass any order that this hon’ble high court may deem fit in the interest of equity, justice and
good conscience.
And for this act of kindness , the counsel for the petitioner shall duty bound forever pray.
ALL OF WHICH IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.