HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
R. P. Mookerjee, Lahiri
HARINARAYAN SHAW - Appellant
Versus
GOBARDHANDAS SHROFF - Respondent
A. F. O. D. 186 Of 1949
Decided On : AUGUST 16, 1951
SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT - PROPERTY RIGHTS - TRUSTEES - REGISTERED SOCIETY - ADVERSE POSSESSION - INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES - DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY - SUIT MAINTAINABILITY - FACTUAL FINDINGS - APPELLATE REVIEW.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff, a registered society, filed a suit for possession of property after declaration of title, claiming ownership through a transfer to three trustees in 1937 and subsequent registration of the society under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. Defendant 1 claimed possession since 1939 with the plaintiff's consent, while Defendant 2 asserted adverse possession and raised a defense of misjoinder of parties.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the property belonged to the registered society, as the registration under the Act gave the society a legal status and made it convenient for carrying out its purposes. The property, though vested in trustees, was deemed to belong to the society. The court also found that the plaintiff society had the authority to delegate the power to file a suit to one of its trustees, and the suit was maintainable. The court further held that Defendant 2 had not established adverse possession, as the platform and alleged Sivalingam were constructed after 1946.
Issues: 1. Whether the property in dispute belonged to the registered society or not. 2. Whether the plaintiff society had the authority to delegate the power to file a suit to one of its trustees. 3. Whether Defendant 2 had acquired title by adverse possession.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court interpreted the provisions of the Societies Registration Act, 1860, and held that registration under the Act gave the society a legal status and made it convenient for carrying out its purposes. The property, though vested in trustees, was deemed to belong to the society. 2. The court held that Rule 15 of the society's Rules and Regulations, which allowed the Executive Committee to delegate powers to office bearers or trustees, was not ultra vires the Societies Registration Act, and that the delegation of authority to file the suit to one of the trustees was valid. 3. The court found that Defendant 2 had not established adverse possession, as the platform and alleged Sivalingam were constructed after 1946.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal, upholding the lower court's decree with a modification to extend the time for the defendants to remove the structures from the suit lands.
( 1 ) THE plaintiff respondent filed the suit out of which this appeal arises for recovery of possession of a particular property after declaration of title and also for damages. The plaintiff's case was that the property in suit belonged to the Srinagar Dharmasala Trust Fund which had been let out in tenancy. On 30-7-1942, possession was obtained after a decree in ejectment had been passed against the tenant. About May, 1946, defendant 1 unlawfully took possession of the land, illegally constructed certain temporary sheds and let out the same to defendants 3 and 4. Defendant 2 had also raised a platform in one portion of the land in collusion with defendant 1 without the knowledge of the plaintiff.
( 2 ) THE principal defence was raised on behalf of defendant 1 who denied the plaintiff's title, claimed that he was not a trespasser, but his father had been in possession since 1939 With the consent of the plaintiff. Defendants 3 and 4 were claimed as tenants.
( 3 ) DEFENDANT 3 claimed to be a tenant, and was ready to pay rent either to defendant 1 or to the plaintiff whoever was entitled to the same. Defendant 4 also claimed to be a tenant under defendant 1.
( 4 ) DEFENDANT 2 Kripal Das alias Sadhu Baba raised various defences about the frame of the suit. Defence as to misjoinder of parties, also was raised as Iswar Kripaleswar Thakur, a Deity alleged to have been consecrated on. a portion of the land, had not been impleaded. He also denied the title of the plaintiff and claimed right by adverse possession.
( 5 ) THE suit had originally been filed by Srinagar Dharmasala Trust Fund, a Society registered under Act XXI of 1860. Subsequently, the cause title was allowed to be amended and the plaintiff is now described as : "gobardhan Das Shroff, authorised Trustee. Srinagar Dharmasala Trust Fund, a society registered under Act XXI of 1860 having its registered office at 184, Cross Street, Calcutta. "
( 6 ) VARIOUS Issues had been raised in the Lower Court. It is not necessary for our present purposes to refer to all of them, as on behalf of the appellants only a few points have been pleaded. The Trial Court decreed the plaintiff's suit. The Society's alleged title to the land was declared with a direction that the said Society was to recover 'khas' possession by evicting the defendants therefrom. If the defendants did not remove the structures and other things from the land in suit within a particular date fixed, the plaintiff would recover 'khas' possession by removing the structures in execution of the decree. Mesne profits were decreed from May, 1946 against defendant 1 alone till the date of recovery of possession.
( 7 ) THE only points urged in support of this appeal preferred by defendants 1 and 2 are (1) that the plaintiff Society has no right, title and interest in the disputed property, (2) that Gobardhandas Shroff alone describing himself as trustee of the Srinagar Dharmasala Trust Fund is not entitled to maintain the present suit, and (3) that defendant 2 has acquired title by adverse possession.
( 8 ) THE first and principal question raised in this appeal as to whether the property in suit now belongs to the Srinagar Dharmasala Trust Fund, as a registered Society, depends for its decision on an interpretation of the provisions contained in the Societies Registration Act 1860 (Act XXI of 1860 ). Before we refer to the provisions of that Act it is necessary that the relevant facts of the present case may be shortly stated.
( 9 ) THE property in suit was purchased in October, 1918, by one Haribux from the Trustees Calcutta Improvement Trust. The successors in interest of Haribux transferred the property on 30-8-1937, in favour of three persons, viz. , Lachmi Narayan Shroff, Shewram Shroff and Durga Prosad Shroff, as trustees of Srinagar Dharmasala Trust Fund. On the 7th October following, these three purchasers along with four other persons formed themselves into a Society and got it registered
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.