Back
PATNA HIGH COURT
Rai and Choudhary JJ.
Dassain Nonia
Versus
Ramdeo Prasad Patwa
Appeal From Appellate Decree No. 2203 of 1949 ;
Decided On : SEPTEMBER 25, 1956
LAND SETTLEMENT - VALIDITY - CO-SHARER LANDLORD - EXCLUSIVE POSSESSION - TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT, SECTION 107 - APPLICABILITY - POSSESSION - TRESPASSER - CO-SHARER LANDLORDS' SUPPORT - JOINT POSSESSION - CO-OWNERS' RIGHT TO MAINTAIN EJECTMENT ACTION.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff sued for declaration of title and confirmation of possession of land settled by a co-sharer landlord. The defendants claimed title through a sale deed and asserted that the land did not belong to the plaintiff's lessor. The trial court dismissed the suit, holding that the settlement was void and the plaintiff had not acquired any valid title. The appellate court reversed the decision, holding that the settlement was valid and the plaintiff was entitled to possession.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the settlement in favor of the plaintiff was valid and conferred a valid title on him to maintain the suit. The court found that the settlement was for agricultural purposes and not for non-agricultural purposes, as claimed by the defendants. The court also held that the settlement by one of the co-sharer landlords did not confer any occupancy right on the plaintiff, but he was entitled to remain on the land until the other co-sharers raised any objection. The court further held that the plaintiff was entitled to khas possession of the land, as the defendants were trespassers and had no title to the land.
Issues: 1. Whether the settlement in favor of the plaintiff was valid and conferred a valid title on him to maintain the suit? 2. Whether the settlement by one of the co-sharer landlords conferred any occupancy right on the plaintiff? 3. Whether the plaintiff was entitled to khas possession of the land?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the settlement in favor of the plaintiff was valid and conferred a valid title on him to maintain the suit, as it was for agricultural purposes and not for non-agricultural purposes, as claimed by the defendants. 2. The court held that the settlement by one of the co-sharer landlords did not confer any occupancy right on the plaintiff, but he was entitled to remain on the land until the other co-sharers raised any objection. 3. The court held that the plaintiff was entitled to khas possession of the land, as the defendants were trespassers and had no title to the land.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed with costs.
Rai, J.
1. This appeal by defendants 1 and 2 is directed against the judgment and decree of the 1st Additional Subordinate Judge, Muzaffarpur, reversing those of the 4th Additional Munsif of the same place.
2. The plaintiff instituted the present suit originally against defendants 1 and 2, -namely, Dasain Nonia and his son Chaturbhuj Nonia for declaration of his title to the lands in suit and for confirmation of possession of the same. The case of the plaintiff was that the land in suit appertained to the patti of Khan Saheb Mir Mehdi Hussain, Mutawalli of Waqf Estate, and the plaintiff took permanent settlement of the same at an annual rental of Rs. 5-10-0 under a registered kabuliat dated the 8th December, 1937. According to him, the landlord granted him a rent receipt as proof of the above settlement. After the settlement the plaintiff was put in possession of the same by the Malik by fixing four boundary stone pillars.
After coming in possession of the area settled, the plaintiff filled up a portion of it and constructed a tatti house on it and reared fish in the remaining area settled with him. He sublet the tatti house to one Saudagar Nonia. In the year 1944 defendant No. 1, Dasain Nonia, filed Small Cause Court suit No. 378 of 1944 against Saudagar for arrears of rent of the hut which had been originally constructed by the plaintiff on the allegation that the hut belonged to him, and that he had let out the same to Saudagar on a monthly rental. On the 19th December, 1944, the Small cause court suit was decreed. If, therefore, became necessary for the plaintiff to institute the present suit which was filed on the 27th March, 1945.
3. After about a year of the institution of the present suit the plaintiff got the plaint amended by impleading defendants 3 to 5 on the allegation that on the 23rd July, 1946, defendants 1 and 2 had executed a registered sale deed in favour of Lachhman Thakur and others in respect of 2 kathas of land out of plot Nos. 2788 and 2789, and the purchasers had forcibly constructed a hut on a portion of the suit land. The plaintiff got the relief portion of the plaint also amended to the effect that he be granted a decree for recovery of possession in case he be found to have been dispossessed during the pendency of the suit.
4. The suit was contested by defendants 1 and 2 who filed one set of written statement. They pleaded, inter alia, that defendant No. 1 had purchased the suit land from Ramkhelawan Nonia under a sale deed dated the 11th May, 1933, and since then he had been coming in possession of the same. According to the contesting defendants, the suit land did not form part of the waqf estate of Mir Mehdi Hussain Saheb but was really in the patti of Syed Mohsin, Nawab of Patna. The defendants further pleaded that the plaintiff had acquired no title by the alleged settlement in his favour.
5. Another written statement was filed on behalf of defendants 4 and 5 who pleaded that they were coming in possession of the suit land after having purchased it from defendant No. 1. According to them, defendant No. 1 had purchased the entire plot in suit from Ramkhelawan Nonia in the year 1953. They also asserted that the lands in suit did not form part of the estate of Mehdi Hussain but it belonged to the estate of Fazle Nawab which after his death had passed into the hands of his sons Mohsin Nawab and Syed Amaran Nawab of Patna. They also asserted that the plaintiff had acquired no title by the alleged settlement in his favour.
6. The learned Munsif, who heard the suit, came to the conclusion that as the settlement in favour of the plaintiff was for building purposes, the kabuliat executed by him did not confer any valid title on him. He was further of opinion that the area in suit had. at the time of the Collectorate partition, fallen to the share of a number of co-sharers including the settlor of the plaintiff (vide exhibits 7 and 9) and, as such, the plaintiff being a settlee from only one of
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
