Back
PATNA HIGH COURT
V.Ramaswami and Sinha JJ.
Wali Mohammad
Versus
Gyan Prakash Naga Babaji
Appeal from Original Decree No. 26 of 1947 ; 104 of 1947 ;
Decided On : NOVEMBER 30, 1953
ADVERSE POSSESSION - LAND ACQUISITION - CUSTOMARY RIGHT - EVIDENCE - INTERPRETATION OF DOCUMENTS - LIMITATION - MUNICIPALITIES - POSSESSION - TITLE - TRESPASS.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff purchased land in a court sale and sought a declaration of title and an injunction against the defendants, who claimed a customary right to keep Tazias on the land during Moharram. The Ranchi Municipality also claimed title to the land, alleging that it had been acquired in land acquisition proceedings.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the plaintiff had acquired title to the land by virtue of his purchase in the execution case and that the Municipality had not acquired previous title to the land in the land acquisition proceeding. The court also found that the defendants had not established a customary right to keep Tazias on the land.
Issues: 1. Whether the plaintiff had acquired title to the land by virtue of his purchase in the execution case? 2. Whether the Municipality had acquired title to the land in the land acquisition proceeding? 3. Whether the defendants had established a customary right to keep Tazias on the land?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the plaintiff had acquired title to the land by virtue of his purchase in the execution case because: a. The sale certificate was valid and the plaintiff had obtained possession of the land. b. The Municipality's claim that the land had been acquired in land acquisition proceedings was erroneous because the land acquisition proceeding was void for uncertainty. c. The Municipality had not acquired title to the land by adverse possession because there was no evidence that it had been in possession of the land for the requisite period of time. 2. The court held that the Municipality had not acquired title to the land in the land acquisition proceeding because: a. The land acquisition proceeding was void for uncertainty because the area of the land acquired was not clearly specified. b. The Municipality had not taken possession of the land and had not exercised any acts of ownership over it. 3. The court held that the defendants had not established a customary right to keep Tazias on the land because: a. There was no evidence that the Tazias were kept on behalf of a particular class of persons or by the Mohammadan community of Ranchi or of any Mahalla of Ranchi. b. There was no evidence that the Tazias had been kept on the land for a long period of time.
Final Decision: The court affirmed the judgment and decree of the lower court and dismissed the appeals with costs.
Ramaswami, J.
1. These appeals are presented against the judgment and decree of the Special Subordinate Judge of Ranchi dated 11-12-1946. First Appeal No. 26 of 1947 is on belialf of defendants 1 to 5 and First Appeal No. 104 of 1947 is on behalf of the Ranchi Municipality.
2. The dispute relates to a triangular piece of land located in the town of Ranchi. The land is .143 acre in area and covers plots 1715, 1716 and 1717 of the Municipal Survey. The Municipal Survey took place in the year 1929 and defendant No. 7, Baralal, was recorded in the khatian for all the three plots. Baralal had given land on lease to Ganga Prasad Budhia, defendant No. 6, who defaulted in payment of rent. Baralal obtained a decree for rent in the Civil Court and in execution of that decree the plaintiff purchased the land in court sale for a sum of Rs. 8,051 on 16-11-1942. The plaintiff obtained a sale certificate and was given possession of the land in due course through Court. The plaintiff applied for mutation of his name in the Municipal records. Mutation was made and the plaintiff was assessed to Municipal tax from the first quarter of 1943-44. The plaintiff alleges that some Moham-madans of Ranchi put forward a claim that they had right of keeping Tazias on the land during Moharram. The plaintiff asserts that the claim is unfounded. The plaintiff has brought the present suit for a declaration that the title had vest-ed in him and that the Mohammadan community of Kanchi has no customary right to use any part of the land during Moharram for keeping Tazias.
3. Defendants 1 to 5 contested the suit on the ground that plots 1715, 1716 and 1717 did not belong to Baralal and the plaintiff had acquired no title by the sale in the execution case. They alleged that the Mohammadans of Ranchi have used the land for keeping Tazias at the time of Moharram. Defendant No. 9 is State of Bihar. It is claimed on their behalf that plot 1717 and a portion of plot 1716 were acquired by the Government at the expense of the Ranchi Municipality by land acquisition proceedings taken in the year 1908. It is said that possession was given to the Municipality on 24-5-1908. As regards the remaining portion of plots 1716 and 1715 it is claimed that the public have a right to use these plots and that the title vests in the Ranchi Municipality. Defendant No. 9 admitted the claim of defendants 1 to 5 that the land was used for keeping Tazias at the time of Moharram. Defendant No. 6 Ganga Prasad Budhia and defendant No. 7 Baralal also filed written statements. They both support the case of the plaintiff that Ranchi Municipality has no title to the land.
4. After examining the oral and documentary evidence adduced in the case the Subordinate Judge found (1) that the entire disputed land had been acquired by the Government on behalf of the Ranchi Municipality, (2) that the plaintiff has acquired title by adverse possession for a long period, and (3) that the Mohammadans of Ranchi used to keep Tazias on the land but no customary right has been established and the user of the land at the time of Moharram was merely permissive. In view of these findings, the Subordinate Judge decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff. (5) The first question in this case is whether the plaintiff has established his title to the three disputed plots. The claim of the plaintiff is based upon the sale certificate, exhibit 4, dated 17-12-1942. It is alleged in the plaint and established by evidence that Baralal had leased the land to defendant No. 6, Ganga Prasad Budhia, on 7-4-1934 by a registered Kabuliat, exhibit 1. As Ganga Prasad Budhia defaulted in payment of rent the landlord brought a suit and obtained a decee. In execution of the decree, the land was put to sale and purchased by the plaintiff in the court of the Munsif of Ranchi. The bid-sheet is exhibit 5 and the sale certificate is exhibit 4. Lachmi Nara-yan Misra (P. W. 3) has deposed that he delivered possession to the plaintiff in pu
AI
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
