Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
NARENDRA KUMAR VYAS, J.
Kishan Kumar Agrawal S/o Shri Pawan Kumar Agarawal - Appellant.
Versus
Rev. Anurag Nathaniel Executive Secretary, Indian Church Council Of
The Disciples Of Christ Resident Of Ashlay Memorial Banglow – Respondent
FA No. 24 of 1993
Decided on : 27-04-2022
Constitution of India,1950 - Article 226/227 - Civil Procedure Code,1908 - Order 1 Rule 10(2) r/w section 151 - Indian Evidence Act - Section 85, 62 ab 64, and 57 (6) - Indian Notaries Act, 1952 - Section 14 - Registration Act 1908 – Section 33 – Societies act - Section 6 and 23 - Suit for damages - Wrongful possession of the suit property refused to vacate - Order of mutation - Plaintiff filed a suit before learned Additional District Judge for possession and mesne profits of suit property mentioned in schedule-A annexed with plaint, mainly contended that plaintiff has purchased suit property as described in map annexed with plaint registered sale deed from owner of property Missionary Society through their authorized Attorney - It has also been contended that name of plaintiff has also been mutated by Nazul Authorities, Revenue Case - Defendant No.1 – Claiming and describing himself as an Executive Secretary of Indian Church Council of Disciples of Christ who is in wrongful possession of the suit property refused to vacate the suit premises which has necessitated plaintiff to file a suit for damages from date of purchase till date of granting possession by the trial court - It has also been contended that defendants have filed a suit - continue the wrongful possession of suit property which was registered as Civil Suit against plaintiff as well as vendor of plaintiff in Court of District Judge - Claimed that defendants are in possession of the suit property in their own right plaintiff has suppressed this fact from knowledge Authority and thus order of mutation, if any, is vitiated on account of fraud practice by plaintiff with Authority - Held, Possession under agreement, he must disclaim his right thereunder and plead and prove assertion of his independent hostile adverse possession to knowledge of transferor or his successor in title or interest and that the latter had acquiesced to his illegal possession during the entire period of 12 years, i.e., upto completing period of his title by prescription nec vi, nec clam, nec precario - Appellant's claim is founded on Section 53-A, it goes without saying that he admits by implication that he came into possession of the land lawfully under agreement and continued to remain in possession till date of the suit - Adverse possession is not available to the appellant - Possession wife of defendant, is statedon account of consideration paid. Assuming that transaction did not fructify into a sale deed for whatever reason, still date when such possession becomes adverse would have to be set out plea of adverse possession is lacking in all material particulars - Defendant no.1 and 2 have denied the title of the plaintiff and the litigation is going on between parties cannot be said that finding recorded by the learned trial Court with regard to the adverse possession is legal and justified deserves to be set aside - Appeal is allowed
JUDGMENT :
1. The appellant/plaintiff has preferred this First Appeal against the judgment and decree dated 4-12-1992 passed by the First Additional Judge to the court of District Judge, Bilaspur, in Civil Suit No. 2-A/77 (Seth Banwarilal/plaintiff vs. Rev. Adwin Bhagirathi) by which the suit filed by the appellant for possession of Ashley Memorial building with open plot area measuring 39400 sq. fit in sheet No. 4, najul plot No. 85/1 situated in Mohalla Jarhabhata, District Bilaspur has been dismissed.
2. The names of the parties have been described as mentioned in Civil suit filed before the trial Court.
3. The brief facts as reflected from the record are that the plaintiff filed a suit on 14.11.1972 before the learned Additional District Judge, Bilaspur for possession and mesne profits of suit property mentioned in schedule-A annexed with plaint, mainly contended that the plaintiff has purchased the suit property as described in the map annexed with plaint for Rs.45,000/- by a registered sale deed dated 17-5- 1971 from the owner of the property namely United Christian Missionary Society, United States of America, Indiana Polis, Indiana (hereinafter referred to as “UCMS (USA)) through their authorized Attorney F.C. Jonathan, holding a power of attorney. It has also been contended that name of the plaintiff has also been mutated by the Nazul Authorities, Bilaspur, in Revenue Case No. 94/1970-71 vide order dated 4-11-1971.
4. It has been further contended that defendant No.1 – Bhagirathi claiming and describing himself as an Executive Secretary of the Indian Church Council of the Disciples of Christ (for short, “ICCDC”) who is in wrongful possession of the suit property refused to vacate the suit premises which has necessitated plaintiff to file a suit for damages from the date of purchase till the date of granting possession by the trial court. It has also been contended that defendants have filed a suit on 1-10-1971 in order to continue the wrongful possession of the suit property which was registered as Civil Suit No. 8-A/1971 against the plaintiff as well as vendor of the plaintiff in the Court of District Judge, Bilaspur, wherein the defendant has claimed that the defendants are in possession of the suit property in their own right the plaintiff has suppressed this fact from the knowledge of Najul Authority and thus order of mutation, if any, is vitiated on account of fraud practice by the plaintiff with the Najul Authority.
5. It has been further contended that H.M. Renalds on behalf of UCMS (USA) sold a part of the land plot No. 85 of sheet No.4 to one M.M. Scot under a registered deed of sale dated 31-10-1956 for a sum of Rs.48/-, as an agent and as Secretary of UCMS (India) and placed him in possession. The State of Madhya Pradesh has executed a deed of renewal of lease in favour of the Secretary, UCMS under a registered deed dated 28-10-1966 for a period upto 31-1-1994 wherein it has been shown as sheet No.4 plot No.85/1, area 129073 sq. ft and same was executed by R.A. Vicks as an Administrator and Field Secretary of UCMS who was the then residing at Napier Town, Jabalpur and was looking after the work and managing the properties from there.
6. It has been further contended that since disputes about management of the Mission and the properties at Bilaspur arose between R.A. Vicks who was an Attorney for UCMS (USA) and Ex-Secretary of UCMS (India) and CCDC on the one hand and these defendants viz., Edwin Bhagirathi as the Executive Secretary of ICCDC, on the other hand, a petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed before the Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh which was registered as miscellaneous petition No. 327 of 1968. Hon’ble the High Court of Madhya Pradesh has passed the following order and the relevant paragraphs 5 to 8 are extracted below:
“5. Both parties have pleaded that there was union or, amalgamation of UCMS (India) and CCDC though, according to them, the consequences were di
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
