SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1976 Supreme(SC) 83

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
H.R. KHANNA AND P.K. GOSWAMI, JJ.
Bechan Pandey and others, Appellants
Versus
Dulhin Janki Devi and others, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 1432 of 1968
Decided on 9-3-1976.
Advocates appeared 
Mr. Sarjoo Prasad, Sr. Advocate (Mr. D. Goburdhun Advocate with him),for Appellants, Mr. V. B. Desai, Sr. Advocate (Mr. D. P. Mukherjee Advocate with him) for Respondents Nos. 3, 4,5 6 (a), 14 and 15, Respondents Nos. 1, 2, 6, 7 to 13 and 16-17 Ex Parte.

Advocates:
D.GOVERDHAN CHARY, D.P.MUKHERJI, SARJU PRASAD, V.S.DESAI

Headnote:

Constitution of India,1950 - Article 133 (1) (a) - Suit for Possession – Sale deed – Recovery of Mortgage Amounts - One had a share of annas pies in in the above Mahals - He also held different shares in other pattis of two Mahals - mortgaged with possession his share in the said lands in favour by means of several mortgage deeds. As the mortgages were dispossessed from some of lands mortgaged in their favour they filed a suit for recovery of the mortgage amounts - Final decree was awarded in that suit on June 13, 1925 - In execution of that decree proprietary interest of was auctioned on June 15, 1932 and was purchased by widow of mortgagee. Sale certificate was granted to auction purchaser on February 26, 1935. She got delivery of possession of the land sold in her favour on March 19 and 20, 1935 - On November , 1936,who held general power of attorney from, executed a patta (lease) for seven years in respect of bighas out of the land purchased by in favour of Mahadeo Rai and others. On September 27, 1940 executed on behalf of Kaur a deed for perpetual lease of land measuring bighas, kathas out of the land purchased by her in favour of plaintiffs 1 to 3, 14 16 to 18 and father of plaintiffs 10 to 13 - Three days later on September 30, 1940 executed and other deed for perpetual lease in respect of the remaining land measuring 8 bighas in favour of plaintiff No. 15 - On May 16 1941 Mahadeo Rai and others, in whose favour lease deed of the land had been executed for seven years, relinquished their rights under the lease in favour of the plaintiffs - On July 13, 1942 sold her proprietary interest which she had acquired under the auction sale to Rajendra Prasad Singh and others – Held, We find it difficult to accede to this prayer - As already pointed out above contesting defendants clearly stated in their written statements that not the auction purchaser of the land in dispute - In view of that unequivocal averment there was no valid basis for the assumption or the impression under which plaintiff-appellants are stated to have laboured - Apart from that, we find that the suit out of which the present appeal has arisen was filed as long ago as January 1950. From the title of the appeal we find that many of original plaintiffs and defendants have during this period of more than a quarter of century departed and 869 are no more in the land of the living, having bowed as it were to the inexorable law of nature. They are now represented by their legal representatives. To remand the suit to the trial Court would necessarily have the effect of keeping alive the strife between the parties and prolonging this long drawn litigation by another round of legal battle in the trial Court and thereafter in appeal. It is time in Court opinion, that Court draw the final curtain and put an end to this long meandering course of litigation between the parties. If the passage of time and the laws of nature bring to an end lives of men and women, it would perhaps be the demand of reason and dictate of prudence not to keep alive after so many years the strife and conflict started by dead - To do so would in effect be defying the laws of nature and offering a futile resistance to revage of time – Court opinion that Court draw final curtain on this long drawn litigation and not allow its embers to smoulder for a further length of time, more so when principal contestants have all departed bowing as it were to inexorable law of nature - One is tempted in this context to refer to observations of Chief Justice Crewe in a case concerning peerage claim made after death without issue of Earl of Oxford. Said learned Chief Justice - Appeal dismissed

JUDGMENT  

KHANNA, J.— The plaintiff-appellants filed a suit in the Court of Sub-ordinate Judge Arrah against 41 defendants for a declaration of the title to land measuring 142 baghas, 17 kathas described in the schedule to the plaint situated in village Shivpur Diar in District Shahbad. Prayer was also made for delivery of possession of the land and for the profits amounting to Rs. 4,100. The trial Court dismissed the suit in respect of land measuring 28.36 acres out of plot No. 3863/41. Suit in respect of the remaining land was decreed. The plaintiffs were also held entitled to recover mesne profits from defendants who might be found in possession of the land decreed. On appeal by defendants 3, 7, 12 and 14 the Patna High Court accepted the appeal and dismissed the suit in its entirety. The plaintiffs have come up in appeal to this Court against the judgment and decree of the High Court on certificate granted under Article 133 (1) (a) of the Constitution.

2. Village Shivpur Diar consists of five Mahals, Shivpur Diar Nambari, Shivpur Diar Gangbarar Shumah, Shivpur Diar Gangbarar Janubi, Shivpur Diar Sarju Barar and Shivpur Diar Naubarar. Each of the two Mahals Shivpur Diar Gangbarar Shumali and Shivpur Diar Nambari has 18 pattis. Proprietorship rights in each patti were calculated at 16 annas. One Brahmdeo Singh had a share of 5 annas 4 pies in patti Bhrighunath Singh in the above Mahals. He also held different shares in the other pattis of the two Mahals. Bramdeo Singh mortgaged with possession his share in the said lands in favour of Sitaram Sahu and Sheogulam Sahu by means of several mortgage deeds. As the mortgages were dispossessed from some of the lands mortgaged in their favour, they filed a suit for recovery of the mortgage amounts. Final decree was awarded in that suit on June 13, 1925. In execution of that decree proprietary interest of Brahmdeo Singh in Mahal Shivpur Diar Nambari and Mahal Shivpur Diar Gangbarar Shumali was auctioned on June 15, 1932 and was purchased by Maina Kuer, widow of Sitaram Sahu mortgagee. Sale certificate was granted to Maina Kuer auction purchaser on February 26, 1935. She got delivery of possession of the land sold in her favour on March 19 and 20, 1935. On November 9, 1936 Sheo Prasad Singh, who held general power of attorney from Maina Kuer, executed a patta (lease) for seven years in respect of 135 bighas, 15 kathas out of the land purchased by Maina Kuer in favour of Mahadeo Rai and others. On September 27, 1940 Sheo Prasad Singh executed on behalf of Maina Kaur a deed for perpetual lease of land measuring 134 bighas, 17 kathas out of the land purchased by her in favour of plaintiffs 1 to 3, 14 16 to 18 and father of plaintiffs 10 to 13. Three days later on September 30, 1940 Sheo Prasad Singh executed and other deed for perpetual lease in respect of the remaining land measuring 8 bighas in favour of plaintiff No. 15. On May 16, 1941 Mahadeo Rai and others, in whose favour lease deed of the land had been executed for seven years, relinquished their rights under the lease in favour of the plaintiffs. On July 13, 1942 Maina Kuer sold her proprietary interest which she had acquired under the auction sale to Rajendra Prasad Singh and others.

3. The plaintiffs in whose favour deed for perpetual lease of the land purchased by Maina Kuer had been executed filed the present suit in January 1950 against the defendants, on the allegation that defendants 1 to 18 had taken wrongful possession of the land. Prayer was also made as mentioned above for recovery of Rs. 4,100 as niesne profit. It was also mentioned by the plaintiffs that proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in respect of the land in dispute had been initiated but as those proceedings were dropped the plaintiffs had to seek redress by means of the present suit.

4. The suit was resisted by the defendants who denied the title of the plaintiffs or Maina Kuer to the land in dispute. It was also stated that the said













Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top