JUDGMENT :- This second appeal is filed against the decree and judgment of the Court of the Dist. Judge, Secunderabad, confirming that of the District Munsiff in a suit filed by the appellant for a declaration of his rights in respect of two mutton stalls and for an injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with his rights.

2. The facts, admitted or found, may be briefly stated. The plaintiff is a butcher carrying on his trade in the mutton stalls owned by the Cantonment authorities in Secunderabad. It appears that in 1929 there was a butchers strike in Secunderabad and, during that period, the plaintiff rendered valuable assistance to the Cantonment authorities. In appreciation of his services, the Cantonment Board passed the following resolution dated 20th August. 1933 :

"Mutton stalls Nos. I and II in the Cantonment General Market to be allotted to Mr. Akram Mia during his lifetime or until he gives notice of vacation subject to the condition that this right is not under-let or transferred."

3. Though the Cantonment authorities held every year a ballot for allotment of stalls, pursuant to the aforesaid resolution, the said stalls were not included in the ballot and the plaintiff was allowed to continue to be in exclusive possession thereof. As the defendant, in violation of the terms of the aforesaid resolution, attempted to auction the aforesaid two stalls along with the other stalls in the city, the plaintiff filed the suit for a declaration of his permanent right to the said stalls and for an injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with his rights.

4. The defendant pleaded that, under the resolution, the plaintiff was given only a concession, which could be revoked at their pleasure having regard to the supervening circumstances. They also pleaded that, under the said resolution, no leasehold interest in perpetuity was created in favour of the plaintiff and that, even if it purported to do so the resolution could not legally create any such interest as no document complying with the provisions of the Registration Act or the Cantonments Act was executed in his favour. The plaintiff sought to get over the legal objections raised by the defendant by pleading that the grant was a Crown grant and that his possession was protected under S. 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act.

5. Both the Courts held against the plaintiffs contention and dismissed the suit. Hence, the appeal.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the lease of the stalls by the Cantonment authorities in plaintiffs favour was a Crown grant and, therefore the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act would not apply to such a grant. Section 2 of the Government Grants Act XV of 1895 says :

"Nothing in the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, contained shall apply or be deemed ever to have applied to any grant or other transfer of land of any interest therein heretofore made or hereafter to be made by or on behalf of the Government to or in favour of any person whomsoever; but every such grant and transfer shall be construed and take effect as if the said Act has not been passed."

7. The section will apply only to a case where the grant was made by the Crown or on behalf of the Crown. Assuming that the aforesaid resolution could be construed to be a grant of the stalls made in favour of the appellant, obviously it was not a grant made by the Crown. Can it be said that it was a grant made on behalf of the Crown? It is said that Cantonment Board in making the grant acted on behalf of the Crown. The relevant provisions of the Cantonments Act read :

"Section 108. - Subject to any special reservation made by the Central Government all property of the nature hereinafter in this section specified which has been acquired or provided or is maintained by a Board shall vest in and belong to that Board, and shall be under its direction, management and control, that is to say -

(a) All markets, slaughter houses, manure and night soil depots and building

Click Here to Read the rest of this document