Back
1971 Supreme(Del) 111
High Court Of Delhi
UMRAO SINGH - Appellant
Versus
MAN SINGH - Respondent
L.P.A. 28 of 1968
Decided On : 04/16/1971
H.S.Chadha, S.S.Dalal, SULTAN SINGH
A party cannot approbate and reprobate, i.e., take inconsistent positions in the course of litigation, especially when they have obtained a benefit from the earlier position.
Headnote:
ESTOPPEL - APPROBATE AND REPROBATE - REVENUE COURT JURISDICTION - Bhumidhar Status - Inconsistent Pleas - Res Judicata - Civil Court Jurisdiction - Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 (Act No. 8 of 1954).
Fact of the Case:
Ranjit Singh, allotted evacuee land, sold it to the plaintiffs. The defendant, in possession of the land, resisted the plaintiffs' suit for possession, claiming to be a Bhumidhar and challenging the sale as contravening the Delhi Land Reforms Act. The trial court and first appellate court decreed possession in favor of the plaintiffs, holding that Ranjit Singh was not a Bhumidhar and the civil court had jurisdiction.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court dismissed the defendant's appeal, holding that he was estopped from contending that Ranjit Singh was a Bhumidhar and the suit should have been tried in a revenue court, as he had successfully resisted an earlier suit for ejectment on the ground that Ranjit Singh was not a Bhumidhar and the revenue court lacked jurisdiction.
Issues: 1. Whether the defendant, having successfully resisted an earlier suit for ejectment on the ground that Ranjit Singh was not a Bhumidhar and the revenue court lacked jurisdiction, could now contend that Ranjit Singh was a Bhumidhar and the suit should have been tried in a revenue court. 2. Whether the civil court had jurisdiction to try the suit.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The principle of approbate and reprobate estops a party from taking inconsistent positions in the course of litigation. 2. The defendant, having obtained a favorable judgment in the earlier suit based on his plea that Ranjit Singh was not a Bhumidhar and the revenue court lacked jurisdiction, could not now take the opposite position in the subsequent suit brought by Ranjit Singh's successors-in-interest. 3. The revenue authorities had already determined that Ranjit Singh was not a Bhumidhar, and the civil court could not reopen that issue.
Final Decision: The High Court dismissed the defendant's appeal, holding that he was estopped from contending that Ranjit Singh was a Bhumidhar and the suit should have been tried in a revenue court.
( 1 ) THIS appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent by Umrao Singh defendant appellant is directed against the judgement of learned Single Judge affirming on appeal the decisions of the Courts below wherby a decree for possession of the land in suit measuring 17 Bighas 9 Biswas, situated in village Barwala withinhe Union Territory of Delhi, was awarded in favour of Man Singh and three other plaintiff-respondents against the defendent-appeallant. The land in suit originally belonged to a Muslim who migrated to Pakistan. The land was consequently declared evacuee property and vested in the Custodian. The rehabilitation department allotted the land on permanent basis to Ranjit Singh as per order dated October 25, 1957. Sanad about the transfer of the right, title and interest acquired by the Central Government in the said land to Ranjit Singh was executed on October 29, 1957. Ranjit Singh sold the land to the plaintiff-respondents as per registered sale deed dated February 21, 1962 for a sum of Rs. 10,000. 00. On July 16, 1965 the respondents filed suit for possession of the land in dispute against the appellant on the allegation that the appellant was in unauthorised occupation of the land.
( 2 ) THE suit was resisted by the appeallant who pleaded that the civil Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit. The appellant claimed to be in lawful possession of the land. The validity of the sale by Ranjit Singh in favour of the respondents was challenged on the ground that Ranjit Singh was a Bhumidhar of the land and as such the sale contravened the provisions of. section 33 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act and the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act. 1948
( 3 ) FOLOWING issues were framed by the trial Court.-
1. "whether the civil Court has no jurisdiction to try this suit ? 2. Whether the plaintiff is the owner of the suit land by purchase ? 3. Whether the sale effected in favour of the plaintiff is void as alleged in Para No. 2 of preliminary objection of the written statement ? 4. Relief?
( 4 ) ALL the issues were decided by the trial Court in favour of the respondents. In the result decree for possession of the land in dispute was awarded in favour of the respondents against the appellant. The decision of the trial Court, as stated above, was affirmed on appeal by the first Appellate Court, On second appeal argument was advanced on behalf of he appellant that Ranjit Singh was a Bhumidhar of the land. This contention was repelled by the learned Single Judge. It was accordingly held that the civil Court had jurisdiction to try the suit. The second appeal was consequently dismissed. In the Letters Patent Appeal Mr. Chadha on behalf of the appellant has assailed the finding of the learned Single Judge that Ranjit Singh was not a Bhumidhar of the land in suit. Reference in his connection is made to sub-section (1) of section 4 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 (Act No. 8 of 1954), according to which there shall be, for the purposes of this Act, only one class of tenure-holder, that is to say, bhumidhar and one class of sub-tenure holder, that is to say, asami . It is urged that the civil Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit. Our attention in this context has been invited to section 185 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act according to which except as provided by or under this Act no court other than a court mentioned in column 7 of Schedule I shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, take cognizance of any suit, application, or proceedings mentioned in column 3 thereof. Entry 19 of Schedule I deals with suits for ejectment of a person occupying land without title and damages by a Bhumidhar, Asami or Gaon Sabha. According to column 7 of that entry such a suit is triable in the court of Revenue Assistant.
( 5 ) THE above contention has been controverted by Mr. Dalal on behalf of the respondents. In our opinion, it is not nesessary to express
