Back
1984 Supreme(Pat) 336
PATNA HIGH COURT
Chaudhary Sia Saran Sinha, J.
Rajendra Prasad
Versus
Ram Prasad Sao
Appeal from Original Decree No. 242 of 1966 ;
Decided On : SEPTEMBER 11, 1984
A lessee who continues to possess the leased property after the expiry of the lease term becomes a trespasser.
Headnote:
THICA LEASE - EXPIRY - POSSESSION - TRESPASSER - LAND REFORMS ACT, 1950 - STATUTORY TENANCY - TRUSTS ACT, 1882 - S. 90 - APPLICABILITY - ADVERSE POSSESSION - SUIT FOR DECLARATION OF RAIYATI INTEREST AND KHASH POSSESSION - DISMISSAL - APPEAL - DISMISSAL.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration of raiyati interest in the suit land and for khas possession thereon by ejecting the defendants therefrom as also for mesne profits. The suit properties were bakast lands of two mauzas, Rasuna Tunda and Khaira Tunda, which were included in the Revenue Estate, Palganj bearing tauzi No. 20 of Hazaribagh Collectorate. Raja Ran Bahadur Singh, grandfather of plaintiffs Nos. 4 and 5 was the then proprietor of the Palganj Estate. He gave the two mauzas to the original defendant No. 1 Bihari Sao on thica lease on 13th May, 1925. This thica lease was only for a period of 24 years and it was to expire in Phalgun 1357 fasli corresponding to 4-3-1950. The lessee did not make over the possession of the thica property to the lessor and thus their possession over the same after the expiry of the thica lease became wrongful and besides being liable to be evicted, they were liable to pay mesne profits to the plaintiffs.
Finding of the Court:
1. The possession of Bihari Sao over the two mauzas in question after the expiry of the thica lease by efflux of time on 4-3-1950, was that of a trespasser. 2. The plaintiffs cannot be deemed to be statutory tenants in respect of the suit properties under S.6 of the Land Reforms Act. 3. S.90 of the Trusts Act cannot come to the rescue to the plaintiffs.
Issues: 1. Whether the possession of Bihari Sao over the two mauzas in question after the expiry of the thica lease by efflux of time on 4-3-1950, was that of a trespasser? 2. Whether the plaintiffs can be deemed to be statutory tenants in respect of the suit properties under S.6 of the Land Reforms Act? 3. Whether S.90 of the Trusts Act can come to the rescue to the plaintiffs?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The lease in question having stood determined by efflux of time, in the year 1950, the possession of Bihari Sao over the suit lands, as found above, will be that of a trespasser. 2. The land in suit cannot be deemed to be settled with the plaintiff by the State in accordance with S.6 of the Land Reforms Act. In the absence of any such settlement, no right over the land in suit remained with the plaintiffs after the vesting of the rights in the State by virtue of sub-sec.(1) of S.3 of the Bihar Act. 3. On the expiry of the period of the lease by efflux of time on 4-3-1950, Bihari Sao cannot be regarded as any of the persons referred to in S.90 of the Trusts Act.
Final Decision: The appeal is dismissed.
1. Plaintiffs are the appellants in this First Appeal against the judgment of dismissal dt. 7-4-1966 of the plaintiffs" suit, the suit having been instituted for declaration that the plaintiffs have got raiyati interest in the suit land and for khas possession thereon by ejecting the defendants therefrom as also for mesne profits.
2. Relevant facts for disposal of the limited contentions raised before this Court may be stated as follows : -
The suit properties are described in Schedules "Ka" and "Kha" attached to the plaint. The total area of the properties of Schedule "Ka" situate in two mauzas, namely, Rasuna Tunda and Khaira Tunda is 62.37 acres of land which are said to be bakast lands of these two mauzas. The properties of Schedule "kha" also relate to the above two mauzas and the total area thereof is 7.08 acres of land, these lands being gairmazarua Ahar and gairmazarua pind. These two mauzas were included in the Revenue Estate, Palganj bearing tauzi No. 20 of Hazaribagh Collectorate, commonly called as Palganj Estate. Raja Ran Bahadur Singh, grandfather of plaintiffs Nos. 4 and 5 was the then proprietor of the Palganj Estate. He gave the two mauzas, abovementioned, in thica to the original defendant No. 1 Bihari Sao on the 13th May, 1925, defendants Nos. 1 and 1(a), being his sons, defendant No. 1(b), being his widow and defendant No. 1(c), being his daughter, having been subsequently substituted in the place of defendant Bihari Sao as his heirs. This thica was temporary in nature. Exhibits-6 and 3, respectively, are Kabuliyat and patta in respect of this thica lease executed by defendant Bihari Sao and Raja Ran Bahadur Singh. This thica lease was only for a period of 24 years and it was to expire in Phalgun 1357 fasli corresponding to 4-3-1950. According to the terms of this thica lease, the lessee was to deliver possession of the thica property to the lessor after the expiry of the lease period. The lessee did not make over the possession of the thica property to the lessor and thus their possession over the same after the expiry of the thica lease became wrongful and besides being liable to be evicted, they were liable to pay mesne profits to the plaintiffs.
3. On the death of Raja Ran Bahandur Singh, Palganj Estate, undisputedly, came to be owned and possessed by Jagarnath Singh, since deceased, plaintiffs Nos. 4 and 5 being his sons and plaintiff No. 3 being his widow. In order to meet the cost of litigation, half of the interest in the thica property was transferred by plaintiffs Nos. 3 to 5 to plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2, both sons of Parmeshwar Ram (defendant No. 2) by a registered sale deed dt. 27-12-1959. This is how, all the plaintiffs have combined to institute the instant suit seeking the reliefs abovementioned.
4. Defendant No. 2 Parmeshwar Ram instituted Title Suit No. 205 of 1950 in the Court of Subordinate Judge, Hazaribagh against defendant No. 1 Bihari Sao and Raja Srinath Singh (Plaintiff No. 4) alleging that he has taken raiyati settlement of the bakast lands of Schedule "Ka" by virtue of Hukumnama and Kabuliyat dt. 21-4-1931 which was to take effect after the expiry of the thica lease evidenced by Exhibit-6. Defendant No. 2 Parmeshwar Ram also claimed to have taken settlement of the properties of Schedule "Kha" by virtue of a Hukumnama and Kabuliyat dt. 26-9-1936. The suit was instituted by him for declaration of his title and confirmation of possession or in the alternative for recovery of possession and for specific performance of contract. This suit was contested by defendant Bihari Sao as also by plaintiff No. 4. The defence of Bihari Sao in his written statement, was that his thica was a permanent one and that the alleged thica in favour of Parmeshwar Ram was not genuine. His alternative plea was that he was entitled to retain possession over the property described in the Schedule attached to Exhibit-6 for a period of 75 years more by virtue of some arrangement between him and the Raja of
