Back
1923 Supreme(SC) 37
PRIVY COUNCIL [ON APPEAL FROM THEEAST INDIES]
LORD SUMNER, LORD PHILLIMORE, SIR JOHN EDGE, AND MR. AMEER ALI.
MADHAVRAO WAMAN SAUNDAL GEKAR - Appellant
Versus
RAGHUNATH VENKATESH DESH PANDE - Respondents
On Appeal from the High Court at Bombay.
Decided On : July 10. 1923.
Solicitor for appellants: Edward Dalgado.
Solicitors for respondents 1, 2, 3: T. L. Wilson & Co.
Tenants of service watan lands cannot acquire a right to permanent tenancy by adverse possession against the watandars from whom they hold the land, as the prohibition on alienation of such lands is in the interest of the State.
Headnote:(A) Regulation XVI of 1827 - Sections 19 and 20; Bombay Act III of 1874 - Section 5 - Service watan lands - Alienation - Permanent tenancy - Adverse possession - Prohibition on alienation of service watan lands was enacted in the interest of the State and not merely for the benefit of the holders - Granting a right of permanent tenancy constitutes alienation within the meaning of the law - A tenant or their predecessors cannot acquire title to a permanent tenancy by adverse possession against the landlords from whom they hold the land.
(B) Adverse Possession - A distinction exists between a stranger acquiring title through an absolute assignment and a tenant claiming a permanent tenancy - The principle that twelve years of undisturbed possession after the death of a grantor bars subsequent holders applies to absolute assignments to strangers, not to the assertion of permanent tenancy by existing tenants.
Facts of the case:
The dispute concerns service watan lands. A tenant entered into an agreement with the holder of the land for permanent cultivation at a fixed rent. Following the death of the original grantor, the tenant continued possession, paying rent to subsequent holders and entering into agreements with third parties who acquired interests in the land. The tenant claimed a right of permanent tenancy by adverse possession. The subsequent holders sued for possession and mesne profits.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the prohibition against alienating service watan lands was intended to protect the interests of the State. The claimants, having always been tenants, could not establish a right to permanent tenancy through adverse possession against the holders of the watan.
Issues: Whether tenants of service watan lands can acquire a right to permanent tenancy by adverse possession for twelve years after the death of the grantor, and whether the ruling in cases involving absolute assignments to strangers applies to claims of permanent tenancy.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that the law prohibiting the alienation of service watan lands was designed for the benefit of the State. While a stranger might potentially acquire title via absolute assignment and subsequent adverse possession, a person who holds the land as a tenant cannot convert that tenancy into a permanent one by adverse possession against the landlord.
Result: Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
property law
-
land tenure
-
watan lands
- service watan lands
-
watan lands
- adverse possession
-
land tenure
-
statutory law
- bombay regulations and acts
Judgement
Appeal (No. 89 of 1922) from a judgment and decree of the High Court (June 17, 1918) reversing a decree of the Subordinate Judge of Belgaum.
The suit was brought by the first three respondents against the appellants and the remaining respondents, for rent and to recover possession of certain land between sixteen and seventeen acres in extent, being service watan land of the respondents family. The appellants claim was that they had acquired a right to be perpetual tenants of the land by adverse possession.
The facts appear from the judgment of the Judicial Committee.
Law Rep. 50 Ind. App. 255 ( 1922- 1923) Madhavrao Waman v. Raghunath Venkatesh Desh Pande
76
The trial judge dismissed the suit, so far as possession was claimed, but upon appeal to the High Court that part of the decree was set aside, and a decree made in favour of the plaintiffs for possession and mesne profits.
1923. June 8, 11. Sir George Lowndes K.C. and Kenworthy Brown for the appellants. Neither the agreement of 1872 nor the award of 1894 affected the adverse character of the appellants possession under their claim of a permanent tenancy; their title was complete under s. 28 of the Indian Limitation Act and the suit was barred. [Reference was made to Trimbak Ramchandra v. Shekh Gulam Zilani (( 1909) I. L. R. 34 B. 329.) and Ram Chunder Singh v. Madho Kumari . (( 1885) L. R. 12 I. A. 188, 196, 197.)]
E. B. Raikes for respondents 1, 2 and 3. The claim was not barred by adverse possession. The appellants position was analogous to that of the holder of a permanent lease from the mahant of a math; upon payment of rent to each successor of the grantor there was a continuance of the tenancy for that successors life Vidya Yaruthi Thirtha v. Balusami Ayyar . (( 1921) L. R. 48 I. A. 302, 327, 328.) The decision in Trimbak Ramchandra v. Shekh Gulam Zilani (1) was based upon a misunderstanding of Radhabai v. Anantrav. (I. L. R, 9 B. 198.) The tenants were entitled to possession, and no suit would lie to set aside their assertion of permanent rights Nilmony Sinah v. Kally Churn Battacharjee . (( 1874) L. R.2I..A. 83.).
Sir George Lowndes K.C. in reply.
July 10. The judgment of their Lordships was delivered by
SIR JOHN EDGE. The suit in which this appeal has arisen was brought on October 22, 1914, in the Court of the First Class Subordinate Judge of Belgaum by watandars for the ejectment of the defendants from service watan lands in Mauza Bhivashi in Taluka Chikodi in the District of Belgaum, and for mesne profits. The defendants are not watandars, nor is any one of them a watandar, of the watan. The defendants 1 to 4 in their written statement allege that they, from before 1853, acquired adversely to the family of the plaintiffs a right to the possession of the lands in question as permanent tenants, and enjoyed that right for more than twelve years before suit in the lifetime of the father of the plaintiffs, and that " the cause of action arose in the year 1865, when the plaintiffs grandfather died." The title, if any, of the other defendants depends on the title of the defendants 1 to 4.
The facts of the case will be briefly stated presently, but in order to see whether under those facts the defence of adverse possession is maintainable, it is necessary to bear in mind what the law as to the alienation by a watandar of his service watan lands was, in 1853, and has been down to the institution of this suit.
Reg. XVI., of 1827 was passed by the Governor of Bombay in Council on January 1, 1827. Before that Regulation was passed a watandar could, apparently without the sanction of the Government, assign or mortgage his service watan lands and could grant to any one a permanent lease of them, but the effect of ss. 19 and 20 of that Regulation was to prohibit, in the interests of the State, all such watandars from alienating in any way the service watan lands which they held as watandars. Sects.19 and 20 of that Regulation applied to the lands in suit, and conti
