Back
1867 Supreme(SC) 8
PRIVY COUNCIL [ON APPEAL FROM THEEAST INDIES]
MEMBERS OF THE JUDICIAL COMMITTEE,—THE MASTER OF THE ROLLS (THE RIGHT HON. LORD ROMILLY, THE RIGHT HON. SIR JAMES WILLIAM COLVILE, THE RIGHT HON. SIR EDWARD VAUGHAN WILLIAMS, AND THE RIGHT HON. SIR RICHARD TORIN KINDERSLEY
GUNGA GOBIND MUNDUL - Appellant
Versus
THE COLLECTOR OF THE TWENTY-FOUR PERGUNNAHS - Respondents
On appeal from the High Court of Judicature at Fort William, Bengal.
Decided On : February 22 25 & 26, and March 4, 1867.
Privy Councillor,- Assessor—The Right Hon. Sir Lawrence Peel.
Title to rent is distinct from title to possession. In private land disputes, a twelve-year limitation applies. The government cannot extend this period to sixty years by suing on behalf of a private party whose title is already extinguished by adverse possession.
Headnote:(A) Limitation of Suits - Ben. Reg. II of 1805 - Distinction between title to rent and title to possession - In cases where the government's right is limited to the receipt of rent or tribute (jumma), such right does not inherently include a right to possession of the land. A dispute between private owners regarding boundaries or possession is governed by the twelve-year limitation period. The government cannot extend this limitation to sixty years by instituting a suit on behalf of a private party whose own right to recover possession has been extinguished by laches. (Paras 86-88)
(B) Evidence and Conveyance - Presumptions of conveyance - Where there is long adverse possession, a presumption of a former conveyance cannot be used to defeat that possession if the chain of title is incomplete or the evidence of identity of the land is insufficient. (Paras 88-89)
Facts of the case:
A suit was instituted by the government to recover possession of a specific parcel of land, claiming it was rent-paying land. The defendants contended that the land was rent-free and that they had been in quiet possession for over thirty years. A third party had previously attempted to claim the land, but the government subsequently brought the action to recover possession, relying on a register book to prove the land's identity and status.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the government's title was to the rent (jumma) and not to the possession of the land. The right of the private party through whom the government claimed was barred by the twelve-year limitation period. Furthermore, the evidence provided in the register book was insufficient to establish the identity of the land or a valid chain of conveyance.
Issues: Whether the government, having a right to rent, could maintain an action for possession to benefit a private party whose title was barred by limitation; and whether the identity of the land as rent-paying was sufficiently proved to evict a party in long possession.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the title to rent is distinct from the title to possession. In contests between private owners, the law establishes a twelve-year limitation after which the title is extinct in favor of the possessor. The government's right to rent is unaffected by the transfer of proprietary rights, and it cannot intervene to revive a barred private claim. Additionally, a defective link in the chain of title cannot be supplied by presumption when the possession is adverse and long-standing.
Result: Decision of the High Court reversed with costs; decision of the Civil Court affirmed. Appeal allowed with costs.
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
property law
-
adverse possession
- limitation period
-
land tenure
- mal and lakhiraj
-
title and conveyance
- proof of title
-
adverse possession
-
practice and procedure
-
evidence
- government records
-
civil procedure
- ejectment suits
-
evidence
Judgement
The suit out of which this appeal arose, was instituted by the Collector of the Twenty-four
11 M.I.A. 345 ( 1866- 1867) Gunga Gobind v. C ollector of the Twenty-Four Pergunnahs 81
Pergunnahs, to recover the possession of 21 beegahs 8 c. 4 c. of land, in Mouzah Chandpore, Pergunnah Khaspore, in the District of the Twenty-four Pergunnahs, of Which the Appellants were in possession.
The Collectors case in the Court below, and on appeal, was, that the land was Mal (rent-paying) land, in respect of which the Government was receiving rent, and was not La-khiraj.
The Appellants, in answer, contended first, that the Collector did not establish this fact; secondly, if so, the Regulations of limitation of suits from long possession was a bar to the suit; and thirdly, that in any event, as the Government alleged that they were then actually in receipt of rent in respect of the land, the Collector was not entitled to Maintain an action of ejectment to recover possession.
The facts, in substance, were these
The land in question, is part of the Twenty-four Pergunnahs, of which the Government is Zemindar, and was purchased by the Appellants ancestors in 1826, for Rs. 26,200, as La-khiraj, and they had been in quiet possession of it ever since. It appeared that, before this purchase, the land belonged to one Bandopadhia, and before his purchase, it was for many years the property of John Burrows and his father Reuben, who acquired it from one Richard Johnson, who was admitted to have been holder of it in the year 1783. From that year downwards, Johnson, the Burrows family, Bandopadhia, and the Appellants and their ancestors successively held the land and received the rents; they dealt with it as La-khiraj, and no rent was ever assessed upon or paid in respect of it to the Government, At the time when Johnson held the land in 1783, it formed the northern portion of a dagh (block) of land, then measured at beegahs 46 0 10. Another portion of which beegahs 46 ; 0 10, to the immediate south of and abutting upon it, was, after the purchase by Reuben Burrows, and in the year 1787, sold to a Colonel Wilford, who in the year 1815 devised it to Bebee Khanum, and that land had also always been dealt with as La-khiraj, and no rent paid to the Government in respect of it.
In the year 1857, a claim was set up to 21 beegahs of the land by one of the Respondents, Prince Gholam Mahomed, who claimed the proprietary right in it, as having purchased it and other land, amounting altogether to beegahs 42 16 8, from one Robert Brown, in 1855; and he instituted against the Appellants and the Government three suits to obtain possession of such land. In those suits the Prince alleged that the land in dispute was Mal land, held formerly under a Pottah by the Government to one Colonel Green, the predecessor in title of Brown, the Princes vendor, and alleged that in 1856 the Government had granted him a Pottah.
The Appellant, Gunga Gobind Mundul, by his answer in the suits, set out his title, relying as well upon the facts before stated attending the acquisition of the land as upon the bona fide length of possession, and alleging that a lease of part of the land had been granted by one of the Burrows to one Chedam Ghose at least as far back as the year 1811,. and under which the land had been always treated as La-khiraj, had been purchased as such by the Prince Gholam Mahomed in the year 1833 ; and had, in the receipts for rent taken by him, been invariably described as La-khiraj land.
At this stage of the proceedings the Prince Gholam Mahomed applied to the Revenue Commissioner by a petition dated the 10th of May, 1860, praying that the Government might be made a co-Plaintiff with him, or that a separate suit might be instituted on behalf of the Government, and tried with the three suits, engaging to pay the costs of the Government in any such proceedings. The Commissioner, however, refused to sanction any such course ; when the Prince applied to the Collecto
