Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, K.N. WANCHOO, K.C. DAS GUPTA, J.C. SHAH AND N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR, JJ.
Ram Ran Bijai Singh and others, Appellants
Versus
Behari Singh and others, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 195 of 1961.
Advocates appeared
Mr. Sarjoo Prasad, Senior Advocate, (Mr. Mohan Behari Lal, Advocate, with him), for Appellants; (Mr. D. Goburdhan, Advocate, with him), for Respondents Nos. 1 to 3 and 5.
BIHAR LAND REFORMS ACT, 1950 - VESTING OF ESTATES - SAVING OF ZERAITI LANDS - INTERPRETATION OF S. 6(1)(C) - POSSESSION OF MORTGAGEE AFTER REDEMPTION - WHETHER KHAS POSSESSION OF MORTGAGOR - ADVERSE POSSESSION BY TENANTS - LIMITATION.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs filed a suit for a declaration that the land in question was their zeraiti land and that the defendants had no right or title thereto, and for recovery of possession of the said land. The defendants claimed occupancy rights in the land and asserted that the suit lands were not zeraiti lands but raiyati lands. The trial court found that the land was the zeraiti land of the plaintiffs and that the defendants were in possession as tenants for a term which expired in 1912-13, and that thereafter they continued as tenants of zeraiti land and could not claim any right of occupancy in the land. The court also found that the defendants' possession became adverse only in 1941 when the plaintiffs got the right to resume possession, and that the suit was brought within 12 years from that date and was therefore within time. The High Court upheld the findings of the trial court, but modified the decree by setting aside the decree for possession in favor of the plaintiffs on the ground that the plaintiffs' title had vested in the State under the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950.
Finding of the Court:
The Supreme Court held that the plaintiffs were not entitled to a decree for possession of the suit land because the land had vested in the State under S. 4 of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950. However, the court also held that the plaintiffs were entitled to retain the decree for mesne profits granted by the trial court up to December 31, 1954, since the estate vested in the State as from January 1, 1955.
Issues: 1. Whether the suit land was zeraiti land as claimed by the plaintiffs or raiyati land as pleaded by the contesting defendants. 2. When did the defendants 1st and 2nd parties first come into possession and cultivation of the land. 3. Had the plaintiffs lost title to the land and their suit for recovery thereof barred by limitation by reason of the contesting defendants having perfected their title by adverse possession?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the land was the zeraiti land of the plaintiffs and that the defendants were in possession as tenants for a term which expired in 1912-13, and that thereafter they continued as tenants of zeraiti land and could not claim any right of occupancy in the land. 2. The court also found that the defendants' possession became adverse only in 1941 when the plaintiffs got the right to resume possession, and that the suit was brought within 12 years from that date and was therefore within time. 3. The court held that the plaintiffs were not entitled to a decree for possession of the suit land because the land had vested in the State under S. 4 of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950. However, the court also held that the plaintiffs were entitled to retain the decree for mesne profits granted by the trial court up to December 31, 1954, since the estate vested in the State as from January 1, 1955.
Final Decision: Appeal dismissed.
Judgment
AYYANGAR, J. :
The proper construction of the vesting sections of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter called the Act), and in particular the scope of S. 6 thereof is the principal point that arises in this appeal which is before us on a certificate of fitness granted under Art. 133 (1) by the High Court of Patna.
2. The plaintiffs are the appellants before us. The subject matter of the suit is a piece of land of about 14 bighas and 5 kathas in khata No. 741 in mauza Chaugain. The relief claimed in the suit was a declaration that the land referred to was the zeraity land of the plaintiffs and that the persons who were impleaded as the defendants 1st and 2nd parties had no right or title thereto and for recovery of possession of the said land by dispossessing the defendants who were in actual possession thereof. There was also a claim to a decree for mesne profits for three years before the suit and for an enquiry into future profits under O. XX R. 12 C.P. Code. We shall now state a few fascts which are necessary to understand the contentions which have been urged in this appeal. The material allegations, in the plaint were these : The plaintiffs ancestors had executed a registered rehan bond on October 28, 1897 of lands including those now in suit, in favour of the ancestors of the persons who were impleaded as a defendants 3rd parties. During the subsistence of this mortgage the plaintiff s ancestors executed another registered rehan bond in June, 1907 in favour of persons who were the ancestors of the persons impleaded as defendants 4th parties, a portion of the mortgage money being left with these second mortgagees to enable them to redeem the earlier mortgage. This redemption was effected and the defendants 4th party got into possession of the entirety of the property mortgaged to them. On June 8, 1941, the plaintiffs paid off the amount due on the rehan bond of 1907 and entered satisfaction on the bond making an endorsement thereon. On such redemption the plaintiffs obtained possession of a portion of the lands under mortgage but they could not obtain possession of the lands in suit. These lands were in the possession of the defendants 1st and 2nd parties who claimed title on the basis of their being entitled to occupancy rights in the lands and they refused to surrender actual possession of the land to the plaintiffs. They had asserted that the suit lands were not zeraiti lands in regard to which the plaintiffs as maliks would be entitled to khas possession , but were raiyat lands from which they, the tenants in cultivation could not be evicted. On this claim being made and resistance offered to the plaintiffs taking khas possession, the present suit was filed for the reliefs already set out.
3. The defendants 3rd and 4th parties who were the representatives of the mortgagees under the rehan bonds of 1897 and 1907 hardly came into the picture as their claims under their mortgages have long ago been satisfied. The contest was therefore limited to the tenant-defendants-defendants 1st and 2nd parties and of these, it is sufficient to confine attention to the defendant 2nd parties who are in actual possession of the lands at the date of the suit. It need hardly be mentioned that by their written statement these defendants questioned the tenure of the lands, and asserted their rights to remain in possession despite the discharge by the payment of the rehan of 1907.
4. There were several issues raised which reflected these pleadings. But what we are now concerned with are the issues which relate to the following : (1) Was the suit-land zeraiti land as claimed by the plaintiffs or was it raiyati-land as pleaded by the contesting defendants, (2) When did the defendants 1st and 2nd parties first come into possession and cultivation of the land. It was the case of the defendants that they had been in possession and occupation of the land as tenants long before the rehan of 1897 - even 30 years earlier, whereas it w
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
