Back
1919 Supreme(SC) 35
PRIVY COUNCIL [ON APPEAL FROM THEEAST INDIES]
VISCOUNT HALDANE, LORD .BUCKMASTER, AND LORD DUNEDIN.
CHAUDHRI SATGUR PRASHAD - Appellant
Versus
KISHORE LAL - Respondents
On Appeal from the High Court at Allahabad.
Decided On : June 20. 1919.
Solicitor for appellant : Douglas Grant.
Solicitors for respondents: Ranken Ford & Chester.
Possession of a widow is considered adverse, rather than permissive for maintenance, if she openly asserts full ownership through actions such as claiming heirship, applying for title mutation, or making absolute gifts of the property.
Headnote:(A) Indian Limitation Act, 1877 - Schedule II, Article 144 - Adverse Possession - Suit for recovery of possession of property - Question of whether possession of a widow was adverse or merely in lieu of maintenance - If possession is adverse, the limitation period of twelve years applies from the time possession became adverse - If possession is permissive for maintenance, time runs from the date of death of the possessor.
(B) Nature of Possession - An arrangement where a male relative manages the estate and pays government revenue while widows are maintained does not necessarily exclude the widows' claim to title, especially where such arrangements are customary for pardanishin women - Subsequent open assertions of full ownership, such as claiming heirship in written statements, applying for mutation of title, and making absolute gifts of the property, indicate adverse possession rather than permissive possession for maintenance.
Facts of the case:
A suit was filed to recover property formerly held by a widow who remained in possession until her death. The lower courts held that her possession was not adverse but was in lieu of maintenance. However, evidence indicated that after the death of the manager of the estate, the widow had publicly asserted her title as an heir, applied for the record of title in her name, and made a gift of a portion of the property for religious purposes.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the initial arrangement for maintenance was a matter of convenience and did not settle the question of title. The widow's subsequent conduct—specifically her claims of being a full heir and her act of gifting property—constituted open assertions of full ownership. Consequently, her possession was adverse to the plaintiffs' title, and the claim was barred by limitation.
Issues: Whether the possession of the widow was adverse to the title of the respondents, thereby barring the suit under the Indian Limitation Act, 1877.
Ratio Decidendi: Possession is deemed adverse when the possessor openly asserts a title of full ownership inconsistent with the title of the claimant. Public assertions of heirship, application for mutation of title, and the execution of a gift deed are indicative of a claim to exclusive ownership, transforming permissive possession into adverse possession.
Result: Appeal allowed and the suit dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
property law
- adverse possession
-
hindu law
- widow's rights
-
transfer of property
- gifts
-
practice and procedure
- limitation
Judgement
Appeal by special leave from a judgment and decree of the High Court (July 13, 1911) affirming a decree of the Subordinate Judge of Gorakpur.
The suit was brought by the first and second respondents (father and son) against the appellant and his brother (since deceased) and transferees from them, to recover so much of certain property formerly held by one Dilla Kunwari as was in the defendants possession. Dilla Kunwari and Kishen Kunwari had in 1861 obtained possession in equal moieties of property formerly held by their husband, who died in 1851 ; Kishen died in 1879, having disposed of her moiety in favour of her daughter Jadunath. Dilla, through whom the defendants took, had remained in possession of her moiety, the property now in dispute, from 1879 until her death in 1895.
Substantially the sole question upon the appeal was whether, under the circumstances stated in their Lordships judgment, Dillas possession had been adverse to the first respondent, so as to entitle the defendants to succeed under the Indian Limitation Act, 1877, sched. II., art. 144.
The High Court, affirming the view of the Subordinate Judge, held that the possession of Dilla was merely in lieu of maintenance and not adverse. Leave to appeal was refused on the ground that the question was purely one of fact, and that no question of law was involved. Special leave was granted by the Judicial Committee.
1919. May 23, 26. Sir William Garth for the appellant.
De Gruyther K.C. and Abdul Majid for the respondents.
In the course of the arguments, which were mainly on the facts and the inferences to be drawn, reference was made to Lachhan Kunivarv. Anant Singh (( 1894) L. R.22 I. A. 25.); Sham Koer v. Dah Koer (( 1902) L. R. 29 I. A. 132.); Srinath Gangopadhya v. Mahes Chandra Roy . (( 1869) 4 Ben.
L. R. (F. B.) 3.)
June 26. The judgment of their Lordships was delivered by
VISCOUNT HALDANE. This is an appeal from a judgment of the High Court of Allahabad, affirming the conclusion come to by the Subordinate Judge of Gorakhpur. The only question of substance is when time began to run under the Indian Limitation Act against a claim to recover possession made by the first respondent. The property in dispute was held by a Hindu lady called Dilla Kunwari. She died in 1895, and the controversy turns on whether her possession was that of one claiming adversely as against any other title, or whether, as the Courts below have held, that possession was not adverse but under licence from or by permission of the predecessors in title of the first respondent, a licence or permission granted during the ladys lifetime, in order to afford her the maintenance which she claimed as a widow. In that case time did not begin to run against his claim until she died in 1895, and the Limitation Act has not operated so as to defeat this action.
It will be convenient, in order to make the situation of the parties intelligible, to set out the pedigree in a table —
Murlidhar(commaon ancestor)
|
| | |
Sewak ram Naga Budhu
r mal Lal
|
| Adhar
Mansa ram singh
| |
|
| |
Har Prasad Jeobodh
| |
|
Bhawani
dyal
|
|
|
w
| || Basant Hanu-Hanwant
lal man Prasad (died Persad | 1859) | |
| ||
|
1|
0|
|
|
|
||
Kishen Dilla
kuwanri kuwanri
(widow) (widow)
|
||| |
Raghubans Jadub Kishen Debi kuwanri ans Persad shai (widow) kuwa |
nri | (wido | w) |
Raj kishore Lal (plantiff and first respondent) |
| Harbans Jadunath Lal kuwanri (plantiff and
(died 1895 sec. daughter) respondent |
|
Jaranath
(daughter)
|
||
Chaudhri Chaudhri
shoe satgur
shankar Prasad(son)
Lal(son) (first
(first defedant
defedant and
now appealant)
deceased).
It is not now in dispute that Bhawani and Basant, who appear in the pedigree, were at the time of the death of the former in 1851 joint, and that Basant became entitled to the entire family property, subject to such rights as Kishen and Dilla, Bhawanis widows, possessed. When Basant died in 1859, his widows, Raghubans and Jadubans, had similar rights, and subject to these, his sapindas, the male cousin
