IMPORTANT POINTS
The absolute discretion to resume the land at any time without assigning any reason, absence of any express grant in perpetuity, and absence of any consideration militates against the instrument being construed as a lease in perpetuity
When an auction purchaser derives title on confirmation of sale in his favour, and a sale certificate is issued evidencing such sale and title, no further deed of transfer from the court is contemplated or required.

Headnote:Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Section 105 – The absolute discretion to resume the land at any time without assigning any reason, absence of any express grant in perpetuity, and absence of any consideration militates against the instrument being construed as a lease in perpetuity – Therefore, the said lease is not a lease in perpetuity. (Para 9)
       Registration Act, 1908 – Section 17(2) (xii) – A certificate of sale granted to any purchaser of any property sold by a public auction by a civil or revenue officer does not fall under the category of non testamentary documents and hence is not required to be registered under sub-section (b) and (c) of section 17(1) of the Act – It is well settled that when an auction purchaser derives title on confirmation of sale in his favour, and a sale certificate is issued evidencing such sale and title, no further deed of transfer from the court is contemplated or required – Therefore despite such sale certificate having been registered, the High Court committed a serious error in holding that the sale certificate did not convey any right, title or interest to plaintiff’s father for want of a registered deed of transfer. (Para 10)
       Lease – Condition IV of the lease deed deals with transfers inter vivos (transfer from one living or juristic person to another living or juristic person) and Condition V deals with devolution by succession or by operation of law including auction sales confirmed by court – Only transfers in violation of Condition IV are void and no penal consequence is specified for failure to comply with Condition V – Therefore, the auction sale of the leasehold right was not void for want of notice to the lessor. (Para 11)
       Limitation Act, 1963 – Section 137 – In facts of the case the plaintiff would be entitled to a decree for possession only if he establishes that he was forcibly dispossessed from lawful possession and such dispossession was within 12 years prior to the date of the suit – Plaintiff has failed to prove forcible dispossession and the documents disclose that the land was resumed in terms of the lease dated 30.9.1921 without any protest from the plaintiff – As such, he is not entitled to the relief of possession, even if such dispossession was within twelve years before the date of suit – Apart from merits, the claim for possession is also clearly barred by limitation as the suit was filed on 21.8.1987 and plaintiff was lawfully dispossessed several years prior to 1975 – Final decision of the High Court to dismiss the suit was correct and just and does not call for interference. (Paras 13 and 15 to 17)
       Facts of the case :
       Appellant filed the said suit alleging that suit land measuring 2550 sq. yds. had been leased in perpetuity by the military authorities (General Officer Commanding, Madras District, Bangalore) to M/s S. Giridharilal & Son, a proprietary concern under a registered lease deed dated 30.9.1921; that the lessee put up several structures thereon and was in possession and enjoyment thereof as absolute owners; that G. Anraj Sankla, proprietor of Giridharilal & Son was declared as insolvent in Insolvency Case No.7 and 12 of 1940 on the file of the District Judge, Civil & Military Station, Bangalore and the Official Receiver took charge of the insolvent’s properties including the said land with buildings (for short ‘suit property’); that the Official Receiver put up the suit property for sale by auction; that M. Bhowrilal, father of plaintiff was the highest bidder and the sale of the right, title and interest of Anraj Sankla that is, his leasehold rights, in regard to the suit property in favour of M. Bhowrilal was confirmed on 25.8.1941 and Sale Certificate was issued to him on 29.8.1941 which was duly registered. After the death of his father on 21.7.1969, he came into possession and enjoyment of the suit property. According to the appellant though the lease was one in perpetuity, it was an absolute grant and since no premium or rent was fixed, the enjoyment was to be perpetual and absolute. When matters stood thus, the Commanding Officer of Station Headquarters, Bangalore (Fourth Defendant), under instructions from the first defendant, illegally and unauthorizedly dispossessed him from the suit property in September, 1975, during the emergency period. Thereafter, he was corresponding with the Defence Ministry for relief, and they went on promising to look into the matter. Ultimately, he filed the suit (OS No.10653/1987) on 21.8.1987.
       The trial court rejected the prayer for declaration of title and granted the relief of possession to the Plaintiff and ordered a separate enquiry regarding mesne profits. The High Court by judgment and decree dated 10.7.2001 allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit.
       Findings of the Court:
       The said lease is not a lease in perpetuity.
       Despite such sale certificate having been registered, the High Court committed a serious error in holding that the sale certificate did not convey any right, title or interest to plaintiff’s father for want of a registered deed of transfer.
       The auction sale of the leasehold right was not void for want of notice to the lessor.
       Apart from merits, the claim for possession is also clearly barred by limitation as the suit was filed on 21.8.1987 and plaintiff was lawfully dispossessed several years prior to 1975

JUDGMENT

R.V. Raveendran, J.—

This is an appeal by special leave against the judgment and decree dated 10.7.2001 in RFA No.181/1996 passed by the High Court of Karnataka reversing the judgment and decree dated 8.12.1995 passed by the III Addl. City Civil Judge, Mayo Hall, Bangalore in his suit OS.No.10653/1987. For convenience, the appellant will also be referred to as ‘plaintiff’ and respondents as ‘defendants’.

2.Appellant filed the said suit alleging that suit land measuring 2550 sq. yds. had been leased in perpetuity by the military authorities (General Officer Commanding, Madras District, Bangalore) to M/s S. Giridharilal & Son, a proprietary concern under a registered lease deed dated 30.9.1921; that the lessee put up several structures thereon and was in possession and enjoyment thereof as absolute owners; that G. Anraj Sankla, proprietor of Giridharilal & Son was declared as insolvent in Insolvency Case No.7 and 12 of 1940 on the file of the District Judge, Civil & Military Station, Bangalore and the Official Receiver took charge of the insolvent’s properties including the said land with buildings (for short ‘suit property’); that the Official Receiver put up the suit property for sale by auction; that M. Bhowrilal, father of plaintiff was the highest bidder and the sale of the right, title and interest of Anraj Sankla that is, his leasehold rights, in regard to the suit property in favour of M. Bhowrilal was confirmed on 25.8.1941 and Sale Certificate was issued to him on 29.8.1941 which was duly registered. After the death of his father on 21.7.1969, he came into possession and enjoyment of the suit property. According to the appellant though the lease was one in perpetuity, it was an absolute grant and since no premium or rent was fixed, the enjoyment was to be perpetual and absolute. When matters stood thus, the Commanding Officer of Station Headquarters, Bangalore (Fourth Defendant), under instructions from the first defendant, illegallyand unauthorizedly dispossessed him from the suit property in September, 1975, during the emergency period. Thereafter, he was corresponding with the Defence Ministry for relief, and they went on promising to look into the matter. Ultimately, as they failed to give any relief, he issued a notice through counsel under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure on 8.5.1984, followed by another notice dated 13.4.1987, claiming possession of the suit property. As the said demand was not complied with, he filed the suit (OS No.10653/1987) on 21.8.1987 for the following reliefs :

(a)for a declaration that he was the absolute owner of the suit property;

(b)for a direction to the defendants to deliver back possession of the suit property to him; and

(c)for mesne profits, costs and other appropriate reliefs.

3.The suit was resisted by the Defendants-Respondents. They contended that S. Giridharilal & Son was only a lessee and therefore, plaintiff even if he was the successor-in-interest could under no circumstances, claim absolute ownership. It was also alleged that they had taken action for resumption of the leased land for contravention of the terms of lease (construction of unauthorized structures and failure to notify the lessor about transfer of the leasehold rights) and the suit land was surrendered without protest. The allegation of forcible dispossession in September, 1975 was denied. It was also contended that the only relief sought by the plaintiff in his several representations and letters, in respect of the resumption of the leased land, was compensation for the structures; that the claim was not entertained as the structures were unauthorized; and that if there was any dispute or outstanding claim in that behalf, he should have sought reference to arbitration in terms of the lease-deed, and the suit was misconceived and not maintainable.

4.On the said pleadings, the trial court framed the following issues :

(1)Whether the plaintiff proves that he is the absolute owner of the suit pro

Click Here to Read the rest of this document