Back
Supreme Court Of India
RAM RAN BIJAI SINGH
Versus
Behari Singh
Decided On : April 25, 1963
BIHAR LAND REFORMS ACT, 1950 - VESTING OF LANDS - SCOPE OF S. 6 - ZERAITI LANDS - KHAS POSSESSION - ADVERSE POSSESSION - INTERPRETATION.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiffs, as maliks, filed a suit for declaration of title and possession of land, claiming it to be their zeraiti land, against defendants, who claimed occupancy rights. The trial court found in favor of the plaintiffs, holding the land to be zeraiti and the defendants' possession to be adverse only from the date of redemption of a mortgage in 1941. The High Court upheld the findings but modified the decree, refusing possession to the plaintiffs due to the vesting of the estate in the State under the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950.
Finding of the Court:
The Supreme Court held that the land was zeraiti and the defendants' possession was adverse from 1941. However, the Court found that the plaintiffs could not rely on the exception under S. 6(1)(c) of the Act to retain possession, as the mortgagor-mortgagee relationship had ended in 1941 and the defendants' possession was adverse to both the plaintiffs and the mortgagees.
Issues: 1. Whether the land was zeraiti land or raiyati land. 2. When did the defendants first come into possession and cultivation of the land. 3. Whether the plaintiffs' suit was barred by limitation due to the defendants' adverse possession.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court interpreted the definition of "khas possession" under S. 2(k) of the Act, holding that it requires actual physical possession and not merely constructive possession. 2. The Court held that the defendants' possession became adverse from the date of redemption of the mortgage in 1941, as they asserted their own title and resisted the plaintiffs' claim to possession. 3. The Court found that the exception under S. 6(1)(c) of the Act, which protects zeraiti lands in the khas possession of the proprietor from vesting in the State, did not apply because the mortgagor-mortgagee relationship had ended in 1941 and the defendants' possession was adverse to both the plaintiffs and the mortgagees.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the High Court's decree was upheld, refusing possession to the plaintiffs.
Judgment
AYYANGAR, J.
( 1 ) 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 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 plaintiffs 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 8/06/1941, 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,
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
