Back
1937 Supreme(SC) 52
PRIVY COUNCIL [ON APPEAL FROM THEEAST INDIES]
LORD MACMILLAN, SIR SHADI LAL, AND SIR GEORGE RANKIN.
KUMAR RAJ KRISHNA PROSAD LAL SINGHA DEO - Appellant
Versus
BARABONI COAL CONCERN, LIMITED - Respondents
On appeal from the High Court at Calcutta.
Decided On : June. 4. 1937.
Solicitors for Kumar Raj Krishna Prosad Lal Singha Deo : Stanley Johnson & Allen. Solicitors for the Baraboni Coal Concern, Ld. : Oswald
Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, precludes a tenant or their assignee from denying the lessor's title at the start of the tenancy during its continuance, regardless of whether the tenant was already in possession of the property before the lease was granted.
Headnote:(A) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 116 - Estoppel of tenant from denying landlord's title - No tenant of immovable property, or person claiming through such tenant, shall, during the continuance of the tenancy, be permitted to deny that the landlord of such tenant had, at the beginning of the tenancy, a title to such immovable property.
(B) Scope of Section 116 - The statutory estoppel applies regardless of whether the tenant was already in possession of the land before the lease was granted. When a tenant occupies and enjoys the property under the grant and receives the benefit of the grantor's title and covenants, they are precluded from denying the lessor's title at the commencement of the tenancy.
(C) Eviction by title paramount - A lessee cannot avoid liability for rent by pleading that the lessor had no title; such a defense is only valid if the lessee has actually been evicted by a party with a superior title.
Facts of the case:
A lessor granted a lease for mining rights in a colliery. The lessee subsequently acquired assignments from rival claimants to the same rights. When sued for arrears of royalties, the lessee challenged the original lessor's title, asserting the property belonged to a deity. The lessee contended that the statutory estoppel against denying the lessor's title did not apply because they were already in possession of the property via the rival claimants' leases before the original lease took effect.
Findings of Court:
The court held that the lessee was put into possession under the original lease and its assignment. The plea of eviction by title paramount failed as no actual eviction had occurred. The court determined that the statutory estoppel under Section 116 operates as long as the tenancy continues and the tenant enjoys the property under the grant, irrespective of whether the landlord physically put the tenant into possession.
Issues: Whether a lessee is precluded under Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act from denying the lessor's title in a case where the lessee claims to have been in possession of the property prior to the lease.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act does not contain a condition that the landlord must have put the tenant into possession for the estoppel to apply. The estoppel is based on the tenant's occupation and enjoyment of the property under the grant. Consequently, a tenant or their assignee cannot deny the lessor's title at the beginning of the tenancy during its continuance.
Result: Appeals dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
property law
-
leases
-
landlord and tenant
- estoppel
-
landlord and tenant
-
mining rights
- underground rights
-
leases
-
evidence law
-
estoppel
- section 116 indian evidence act
-
estoppel
-
practice and procedure
-
execution of decrees
- charge on property
- certificate sale
-
execution of decrees
Judgement
Consolidated Appeals (No. 35 of 1936) from a decree of the High Court (July 20, 1934) reversing a decree of the Subordinate Judge of Asansol (December 23, 1929).
In the action out of which these consolidated appeals arose the appellant Kumar Raj Krishna Prosad Lal Singha Deo claimed arrears of rent and royalties due on coal raised during the year ending October 17, 1927, from the Monoharbahal Colliery under the terms of a lease dated January 25, 1912. The lease was granted by the Raja of Panchkote, the father of the plaintiff, and the latter claimed the royalties by virtue of a korposh deed of September 29, 1926, which vested the landlords reversion in him. The first defendants, the Baraboni Coal Concern, Ld., were sued as assignees of the term of the lease, their assignment from the original lessee, who was not impleaded, being by deed dated February 14, 1914. The other defendants, Chandanmull Karnani and Chandanmull Indra Kumar, a firm, were sued as persons claiming to have purchased the right, title and interest of the first defendant company. The first defendants pleaded by their defence that the Raja had no title to the underground rights in Mousa Monoharbahal which was the lakheraj debutter property of a certain deity, and the main question in this appeal was whether, in view of the provisions of s. 116 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the lessee-defendants were estopped from challenging their lessors title. The other defendants pleaded that they did not obtain possession under their purchase until March 20, 1928.
The further facts appear from the judgment of the Judicial Committee.
The Subordinate Judge held that the plaintiff had no title to the colliery, and he dismissed the suit.
On appeal the High Court (Mitter and Patterson JJ.) held (inter alia) that under s. 116 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the defendant company was precluded from disputing the Rajas title.
1937 April 29, 30. Dunne K.C. and J. M. Parikh for Kumar Raj Krishna Prosad Lal Singha Deo.
Sir Thomas Strangman for the Baraboni Coal Concern, Ld. Vaisey K.C. and
H. S. Chatfield for Chandanmull Karnani and Chandanmull Indra Kumar, a firm.
June 4. The judgment of their Lordships was delivered by Sir George Rankin. The plaint in this case was filed on November 18, 1927, and the claim of the plaintiff is for royalties due on coal raised during that year (up to the end of Aswin October 17) from a colliery known as Monoharbahal under the terms of a lease, dated January 25, 1912. The grantor of the lease is the Raja of Panchkote (defendant No. 3) ; the plaintiff, who is his son, claims the royalties due thereunder by virtue of a maintenance (korposh) deed, dated September 29, 1926, which vests the landlords reversion in him no dispute arises upon this assignment. The original lessee, one Radha Balla v Mukherjee, has not been impleaded, the defendants being the Baraboni Coal Concern, Ld., defendant No. 1 (" the defendant company "), and two others (defendants Nos. 2 and 2 (a)). The defendant company are sued as assignees of the term, their assignment being by deed, dated February 14, 1914 ; the other defendants as persons claiming to have purchased the right, title and interest of the defendant company at a sale held under the Public Demands Recovery Act (Bengal Act III. of 1913) on August 17, 1927. These defendants (Nos. 2 and 2 (a)) say that they did not obtain possession under their purchase until March 20, 1928. The lease contained a clause (cl. 14) giving the lessor a charge for royalties upon the colliery and its plant, and the plaint seeks to enforce this/charge by sale.
The defend of the defendant company was that the Raja had no title to the underground rights in Mousa Monoharbahal which was the lakheraj debutter property of a certain deity. This allegation was in the written statement embroidered with, or encumbered by, allegations of fraud and misrepresentation on the part of the Raja and mistake on the part of the defendant company. The
