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

2024 Supreme(AP) 1459

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO, J.
Lingam Premchand and others – Appellant
Versus
Church of South India Trust Association, Madras and others – Respondent
AS No.1521 of 2000
Decided on : 28-11-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Sivalenka Ramachandra Prasad
For the Respondent: J. Prabhakar

A suit for cancellation of a permanent lease made nearly 76 years prior is barred by limitation if no notice was given, and leases with valuable consideration fall outside Section 10 of the Limitation Act.

Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 96 - Limitation Act, 1963 - Section 10 - Suit for cancellation of a permanent lease deed executed in 1907 - Plaintiffs sought to invalidate the lease on grounds of lack of necessity - Court held that the lease was not barred by limitation at the time of suit - The judgment of the Trial Court was examined for errors in reasoning concerning the validity of the lease and entitlement of possession. (Paras 1, 3, 30, 34)

(B) Limitation - Nature of lease - Court affirmed the view that in cases involving leases for valuable consideration, the Limitation Act's section preventing limitation from applying does not extend. No notice was served prior to filing suit leading to the determination that plaintiffs were not entitled to relief. (Paras 25-32)

Facts of the case:
The plaintiffs, a Charitable Trust, filed a suit for canceling a 1907 lease deed claimed to be invalid. The defendants, the legal representatives of original lessees, opposed the suit on grounds of validity, evidence, and limitation.

Findings of Court:
The appeal was allowed, setting aside the Trial Court's decree due to improper application of law regarding limitation and lack of notice.

Issues: The main issues included whether the plaintiffs were justified in seeking cancellation of the lease and if the suit was time-barred.

Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the lease was valid, there was no evidence to substantiate plaintiffs' claims over the defendants' occupancy, and the case was barred by limitation.

Result: Appeal allowed, Trial Court judgment set aside.

Table of Content
1. the appeal relates to a decree concerning a permanent lease deed. (Para 1 , 2 , 10)
2. ownership of the plaint schedule property. (Para 3 , 5)
3. arguments relating to validity and applicability of the lease. (Para 6 , 11 , 12)
4. the case examines the validity of the lease in relation to construction and limitation. (Para 13)
5. assessment of relevant evidence on property ownership. (Para 14 , 15)
6. limitations applicable to property claims. (Para 20 , 21 , 22)
7. decisions on the appeal based on previous findings. (Para 28 , 32 , 34)
8. court concludes the lease remains valid without cancellation clause. (Para 29 , 33)

JUDGMENT :

1. This appeal, under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure [for short "the C.P.C."], is filed by the appellants challenging the decree and judgment, dated 29.04.2000 in OS No.131 of 1983 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Gudivada [for short "the Trial Court"].

2. The appellants herein are the defendants and respondents herein are the plaintiffs in OS No.131 of 1983.

3. The respondents/plaintiffs filed the suit for cancellation of the permanent lease deed, dated 25.03.1907 executed by Sri Arther Earnest Goodman on behalf of Church Mission Society (hereinafter will be called as "CMS") in favour of one Lingam Doorvasulu and delivery of possession of the property to the plaintiffs ejecting the defendants and for future mesne profits from the date of suit till the date of delivery of possession.

4. Both the parties in the appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed before the Trial Court.

5. The brief averments of the plaint, in OS No.131 of 1983, are as under :

    (i) The plaintiff is the Charitable Trust having its Headquarters at Madras. The plaintiff Trust Association is the custodian of the properties of the Church of South India. For administration and management of properties in Krishna Diocese, the plaintiff has appointed four Power of Attorneys. Two out of them are entitled to represent the suits for recovery of the properties of the plaintiffs Association. The plaintiffs Association came into existence a long time back and the CMS merged itself into the Church of South India and all the properties of the CMS became vested in the plaintiffs Association, as per the instrument of transfer executed on 31.12.1956. The plaint schedule property originally belongs to the CMS, thus become vested in the plaintiffs Trust Association.

    (ii) On 25.03.1907 Sri Arther Earnest Goodman executed a permanent lease deed in favour of the grandfather of the defendants namely Sri Lingam Doorvasulu and delivered possession of the said land to him. As per the terms of the said permanent lease deed, the lessee has to pay Rs.20/- per year for the entire schedule land and enjoy the entire income thereupon and in case of failure of payment of rent every year, it was provided that the lessee should also pay interest at 12% per annum. The plaintiffs pleaded that the said permanent lease deed is invalid and inoperative on the ground that there was no necessity for the then Superintending Missionary of CMS to execute the permanent lease deed. There is neither legal necessity nor any benefit to the CMS which is a religious institution. They further pleaded that the plaintiff's Association is a Charitable Institution and the properties owned by them are all trust properties, which cannot be alienated without justifying necessity and benefit to the institution. Thus, Arther Earnest Goodman executed the said permanent lease deed without positive necessity, misusing his power as the then Superintending Missionary of the CMS. The schedule properties are specifically earmarked for the benefit of the Church at Tummalapalli and the income from the schedule land is to be utilized for the sole purpose of effecting repairs to the Church. The rent stipulated at Rs.20/- per year for the entire schedule property is absurdly low and it is practically a sale of schedule property to the said Doorvasulu under the cover of per

            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