SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1915 Supreme(SC) 29

Privy Council
Ameer Ali, Sir John Edge , Sir George Farwell, Lord Shaw, Justice Viscount Haldane, JJ.
Bagga and others -Appellant
Versus
Saleh and others -Resopndent
Decided On : 24-06-1915

Advocates Appeared:
T.L. Wilson and Co., Arthur Grey

Sir John Edge :—

This is an appeal by the plaintiffs in the suit from a decree of the Chief Court of the Punjab, which had dismissed their appeal from a decree of the Trial Judge by which their suit had been dismissed. The respondents to this appeal have not appeared.

In their plaint, dated the 3rd May 1905, the plaintiffs alleged that they, "like the land-owners, are the proprietors" of houses and vacant sites in Patti Lak and had paid tirni (grazing dues) in respect of village shamilat land (common land) of Lak, and they claimed a declaration that they

"Like proprietors, may be declared co-sharers in 30,838 bighas 13/4 kanals of the village shamilat land of Patti Lak in proportion to Rs. 29-15-7, the tirni paid by the plaintiffs, and a share (may be) awarded to them in the said village shamilat of Patti lak on the said tirni amount according to the Khewat."

It is to be observed that in their plaint the plaintiffs did not base their claim to share on the partition of the common lands of Patti Lak upon any right as proprietors of any lands assessed to the revenue in Patti Lak. The plaintiffs were not recorded in the khewat as persons paying land revenue in respect of land held by them in Patti Lak. They did not, in fact, hold any lands in Patti Lak which were assessed to the land revenue. What they claimed was that as they had paid grazing dues they should be treated in the partition of the common land of the village as if they were proprietors of the village, holding lands which had been assessed to the revenue. The trial Judge rightly held that the plaintiffs had not proved any right to participate in the partition of the common lands and dismissed their claim. On appeal the Chief Court held that the payment of Tirni by a person who was not a proprietor paying land revenue did not confer upon him any right to share in the shamilat of Patti Lak. The plaintiffs have failed to prove that they have any right to participate in the partition of the shamilat of Patti Lak.

Their Lordships will humbly advise His Majesty that this appeal should be dismissed.

Appeal dismissed.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top