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

1970 Supreme(Pat) 11

HIGH COURT OF PATNA
R. J. Bahadur & Kanhaiyaji, JJ.
JAGESHWAR SIKHAR ORS. – Appellants
VERSUS
YUBRAJIN SRIMATI BAIDEHI KUER & ANR. - Respondents
S. A. No. 917 of 1966
Decided On: 16th January, 1970

Advocates Appeared:
Messrs Lal Narain Sinha, L. M. Sharma and Bhupendra Narain Singh for the Appellants;
Messrs J. C. Sinha, Janardan Sinha, Raghubansh Singh and Ramesh Chandra Sinha for the Respondents.

A lease of agricultural land must be registered in order to be protected under Section 6(1)(a)(ii) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950.

Headnote:

BIHAR LAND REFORMS ACT, 1950 - SECTION 6(1)(A)(II) - INTERPRETATION - LEASE - REGISTRATION - KHASH POSSESSION - TENURE-HOLDER - CONSTRUCTION.

Fact of the Case:

Plaintiffs claimed title to lands granted to plaintiff 1 by the Maharaja of Chotanagpur, who had resumed the grant after the death of the previous holder. Defendants claimed balposh rights. The Maharaja died in 1950, and the estate vested in the State of Bihar under the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950. The plaintiffs filed suit for declaration of title and possession.

Finding of the Court:

The trial court dismissed the suit, holding that the plaintiffs were not in khas possession of the lands at the time of vesting and had no subsisting title. The appellate court reversed, holding that the lands were privileged land of the landlord and that the plaintiffs were entitled to recover possession. The defendants appealed.

Issues: 1. Whether the lands in suit were in the khas possession of the Maharaja of Chotanagpur on the date of vesting under Section 6(1)(a)(ii) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950? 2. Whether the plaintiffs were entitled to possession of the lands under Section 6(1)(b) of the Act?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the lease in question was not a registered lease, as required by Section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act, and therefore did not satisfy the requirements of Section 6(1)(a)(ii) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act. 2. The court also held that the plaintiffs were not in khas possession of the lands under Section 6(1)(b) of the Act, as they were tenure-holders and not temporary lessees.

Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the judgment and decree of the trial court were restored.

JUDGMENT

Bahadur, J.

This is an appeal by defendants 1 to 4 arising out of a suit for declaration of title of plaintiff no. 1 and alternatively that of plaintiff no. 2; and for confirmation of possession in respect of the lands described in the plaint. The plaintiffs had claimed a further alternative relief for being put in possession after evicting defendant no. 1 from the suit lands in case they were not found to be in possession.

2. Shortly stated, the plaintiffs' case is that village Uchidih within the jurisdiction of police station Raidih in the district of Ranchi formed part of the estate of the late Maharaja Pratap Udainath Sahi Deo of Chotanagpur, great grandfather of plaintiff no. 2, and grandfather of the husband of plaintiff no. 1, who was the mother of plaintiff no. 2. By a registered indenture dated the 23rd November, 1949, the aforesaid Maharaja of Chotanagpur granted to plaintiff no. 1 his entire interest in the aforesaid village and other villages for her maintenance and the said grantee came in possession of the entire lands. It appears that the said village had been leased out by the Maharaja to certain persons before the cadastral survey, but at the time of the cadastral survey the said jagir was in possession of Kanhai Sahi. The Maharaja, however, resumed the grant on the death of Kanhai Sahi and allowed Parbati Kuer and Charan Kuer, mother and widow respectively of Kanhai Sahi, to cultivate and enjoy the usufructs of the Majhias and bakasht lands of the said village for their maintenance during their lives. Parbati Kuer and Charan Kuer executed and registered a keabuliyat on the 1st December, 1930, accepting the above terms. Parbati Kuer died first and Charan Kuer died later some time towards the end of the year 1953, whereupon plaintiff no. 1 entered in possession of the said lands. Plaintiff no. 1 remained in khas possession for some time and thereafter she sold a portion of these lands to certain persons and let out the other portion to different set of persons. Some time in 1955 defendant no. 1 made a claim in respect of the lands in suit on the footing that he was balposh of Parbati Kuer. The claim led to a dispute and a proceeding under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was started in respect of the suit land, which was converted later into a proceeding under Section 145 of the Code. The final order in the said proceeding was passed on the 26th May, 1958, against the temporary lessees and this cast a cloud on the plaintiffs' title. The Maharaja of Chotanagpur died in the year 1950 and after his death plaintiff no. 2 succeeded to his estate as being only member in the line of his eldest son according to the rule of lineal primogeniture. The plaintiffs thus filed the suit in July, 1958, out of which this appeal arises.

3. The defendants' case was that village Uchidih was held and possessed by Deo Sahi and his son Kanhai Sahi under a permanent heritable grant and the said Maharaja never resumed that grant after the death of Kanhai Sahi. After the death of Kanhai Sahi in their Parbati Kuer, Charan Kuer and Most. Gouri, daughter of Parbati Kuer, succeeded to the estate of Kanhai Sahi in their own rights and not as maintenance-holders of the late Maharaja. There was no kabuliyat by Parbati Kuer and Charan Kuer in favour of the said Maharaja. The defendants' further case was that after the vesting of the estate of the Maharaja of Chotanagpur in the State of Bihar in accordance with the provisions of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950, the plaintiffs cou1d not get a decree for khas possession, inasmuch as they were admittedly not in possession of the lands in suit on the date of vesting of the said estate.

4. The Special Subordinate Judge, who tried the suit, did not accept the case of the plaintiffs that plaintiff no. 1 had come in possession of the lands in question, after the death of Charan Kuer and held that after vesting of the estate of the Maharaja in the State of Bihar Mosstts. Parbati Kuer and



































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

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