Back
1968 Supreme(Gau) 52
GAUHATI HIGH COURT
S.K.Dutta, M.C.Pathak, JJ.
Basanta Kumar Nath -Appellant
Versus
Lakshma Moni Nath -Respondent
First Appeal No. 20 of 1964
Decided On : 08-07-1968
S.M.Lahiri, N.M.Lahiri, S.K.Sen, P.Choudhary
Section 111 of the Transfer of Property Act, which requires a notice to terminate a tenancy, does not apply to agricultural leases unless the same is made applicable by notification by the State Government.
Headnote:
LIMITATION ACT - SECTION 4 - COURT CLOSURE - PICKETING - FILING OF SUIT - VALIDITY - STRIDHAN PROPERTY - PURCHASE OF LAND BY WIDOW - SOURCE OF FUNDS - HUSBAND'S MONEY OR SELF-EARNED MONEY - DETERMINATION - TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT - SECTION 111 - NOTICE TO TERMINATE TENANCY - APPLICABILITY TO AGRICULTURAL LEASES - SECTION 117 - STATE GOVERNMENT NOTIFICATION - REQUIREMENT - ADVERSE POSSESSION - DENIAL OF TITLE IN WRITTEN STATEMENT - COMMENCEMENT OF ADVERSE POSSESSION - TRESPASSERS - DECREE FOR KHAS POSSESSION.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff, as the heir of his deceased sister Sachimani, filed a suit for declaration of title, possession, and mesne profits in respect of certain lands. The defendants claimed that Sachimani had purchased the land with her husband's money and that they were the legal heirs of her husband. The plaintiff contended that the land was purchased with Sachimani's self-earned money and that it was her stridhan property.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the suit was not barred by limitation as the court was closed due to picketing during the relevant period and that the plaintiff had filed the suit within time after the court reopened. The court also found that the land was purchased with Sachimani's self-earned money and that it was her stridhan property. The court further found that the defendants had denied the plaintiff's title in the written statement filed in a previous rent suit and that they were therefore trespassers on the land from that date.
Issues: 1. Whether the suit was barred by limitation. 2. Whether the land was purchased with Sachimani's self-earned money or with her husband's money. 3. Whether the defendants were trespassers on the land.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 4 of the Limitation Act provides that where the period of limitation prescribed for any suit expires on a day when the court is closed, the suit may be instituted on the day that the court reopens. In the instant case, the court was closed due to picketing during the relevant period and the plaintiff had filed the suit within time after the court reopened. Therefore, the suit was not barred by limitation. 2. The court examined the evidence on record and found that there was no satisfactory evidence to show that Sachimani had purchased the land with her husband's money. The court also found that Sachimani had purchased the land with her self-earned money and that it was her stridhan property. 3. The court found that the defendants had denied the plaintiff's title in the written statement filed in a previous rent suit and that they were therefore trespassers on the land from that date.
Final Decision: The court affirmed the judgment and decree of the lower court and dismissed the appeal with costs.
This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 23-9-1963 passed by the learned Sub ordinate Judge II. Cachar at Silchar. in Title Suit No 35 of 1961.
2. The plaintiff's case in brief is as follows: Sachimani, the sister of the plaintiff, came to the plaintiff's house after becoming widow before she attained puberty and lived in the plaintiff's house. Thereafter, Sachimani purchased the land described in the second schedule of the plaint along with some other lands with the money from her own earnings as a teacher of L. P. Girls' School. After purchasing the said land, Sachimani settled the land described in items 1 and 2 of the second schedule with defendants 1 to 3 and got the land described in item 3 of the second schedule cultivated by herself through plaintiff. Sachimani died on 27th Baisakh of 1364 B. S. (corresponding to 11th May 1947) leaving the plaintiff as her sole heir of her stridhan property of second schedule land. On the death of Sachimani, the plaintiff got his name mutated in respect of the second schedule land.
3. After the death of Sachimani defendants 1 to 3 did not pay rents and so the plaintiff filed rent suit No. 40/49 in the Munsiff's Court at Mailakandi and that the suit was decreed although defendants 1 to 3 in their written statement denied the title of the plaintiff and set up defendants 4 to 11 as being heirs of Sachimani. An appeal was preferred against the said judgment of the learned Munsiff and the learned appellate Court allowed the appeal, set aside the decree, with the direction to the plaintiff to file a suit for declaration of his title and also for mesne profits. Thereafter the defendants 1 to 3 in collusion with the remaining defendants dispossessed the plaintiff from the land described in item 3 of the second schedule in the latter part of Jaistha 1367 B. S.. corresponding to first part of June 1960.
4. The lands described in the 3rd Schedule to the plaint are the paternal lands of the plaintiff. The defendants have been trying to dispossess the plaintiff from 3rd schedule land also by denying his title.
5. The plaintiff has tiled the present suh for declaration of his title in respect of the entire 1st schedule land which comprises both 2nd and 3rd schedule land, for the khas possession in respect of the second schedule land and for confirmation of his possession in respect of the 3rd schedule land.
6. Defendants J and 3 filed a joint written statement The suit proceeded ex parte against the remaining defendants. The defendants' case is that Sachimani's husband Narayan Nath had three brothers, namely, Nityananda. Paramananda and Sarbananda. Nityananda died leaving behind his three brothers Paramananda. Sarbananda and Narayan as his legal heirs. Thereafter Narayan died leaving behind Sachimani as his sole heir. Paramananda and Sarliananda gifted away 4 bighas 17 kathas of land to Sachimani to be enjoyed by her during her lifetime. Some time after that, Sachimani sold away the gifted land at Rs. 500 and went away with considerable cash of her husband including the said sum of Rs. 500. Sachimani thereafter purchased the entire suit land excluding dag No. 323 with the said sum of Rs. 500 and also with the money that she got from her husband and she settled the above land with the defendants Nos. 1 to 3. On the death of Sachimani the title of the above land devolved on the sons of Parmananda and Sarbananda by right of inheritance and the defendants 1 to 3 have been possessing the above land of Sachimani on payment of rents to defendant No. 8. Defendants 4 to 7 are the sons of Sarbananda and defendants 8 to 11 are the sons of Parmananda. Defendants 1 to 3 are the tenants under Sachimani.
7. A number of issues were framed by the learned trial Court. On a consideration of the evidence on record, the learned Subordinate Judge decreed the plaintiff's suit on contest against defendants 1 and 8 with costs and ex parte without costs against the remaining defendants.
