1997 Supreme(Raj) 433

High Court Of Rajasthan
Judgename : R.R.YADAV
KANTI LAL - Appellant
Versus
SHANTI DEVI - Respondent
C. F. A. 89 Of 1980
Decided On : 05/28/1997

Headnote:

Suit for eviction to recover possession can be filed by a plaintiff against violent invasion of his possession on the basis of his possessory title, if so its effect? Whether a person in possession of a piece of land in assumed character of ownership and exercising peacefully the ordinary rights of ownership has a perfectly good title against all the world but the true owner, if so its effects?

Fact of the Case:

Plaintiff-appellant purchased a parkota (land closed with boundary wall) affixed with a wooden door from Shri Maknaji through registered sale-deed Ex. 2 on 17-11-65. It is averred in the plaint that Shri Maknaji was in possession of the land in dispute for the last 41 years from the date of purchase from Jodhpur Darbar in auction for Rs. 150/- in the year 1923. It is further averred that the possession of disputed parkota was given to the plaintiff-appellant on the date of sale-deed. Defendant No. 3 Babu Lal telephonically informed to plaintiff at Bombay in the first week of May, 1973 that his lock had been broken by defendant Nos. 2 and 3 and they were making construction over his Parkota in question. The plaintiff sent his father from Bombay to Sumerpur. His father came to Sumerpur and made efforts to stop the defendants from raising construction over the disputed land but they refused to yield. Plaintiffs father then filed a criminal complaint under Sections 107/145, Cr. P. C. which was registered under Sections 107/145, Cr. P. C. and the same was dropped after expiry of six months. Later on, he came to know that defendant No. 3-Babu Lal had executed a sale-deed in favour of defendant No. 1 Smt. Shanti Devi wife of defendant No. 2 Narain Lal. Resultantly, the plaintiff-appellant filed the present suit which was presented before the learned trial Court on 13-1-75 and was registered as Original Civil Suit No. 3/75 on 16. 1. 75.

Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the suit for eviction to recover possession can be filed by a plaintiff against violent invasion of his possession on the basis of his possessory title. A person in possession of a piece of land in assumed character of ownership and exercising peacefully the ordinary rights of ownership has a perfectly good title against all the world but the true owner.

Issues: Whether registered sale-deed Ex. 4 executed by Panchayat Samiti, Sumerpur in favour of PW 4 on 22-2-1968 admitting the existence of disputed land belonging to the plaintiffs father prior to dispute arose between the parties is admissible in evidence, if so its effect? Whether a suit for eviction to recover possession can be filed by a plaintiff against violent invasion of his possession on the basis of his possessory title, if so its effect? Whether a person in possession of a piece of land in assumed character of ownership and exercising peacefully the ordinary rights of ownership has a perfectly good title against all the world but the true owner, if so its effects? Whether proof of possession varies with the nature of property and it can be proved by oral evidence, if so its effect? Whether in a suit for recovery of possession based upon the plaintiffs possessory title, the onus of proof is on the plaintiff to prove his possession within 12 years and once it is established then onus to prove shift on the defendant to show that he or she is entitled to retain possession? Whether in the present case, the sale-deed executed by Makna Ji in favour of the plaintiff-appellant on 17. 11. 65 passed valid title on him? Whether the plaintiff-appellant in the present case proves continuous 41 years possession and ownership of his predecessor in title over the disputed land closed with boundary wall and affixed with wooden doors up to the date of execution of the sale-deed dated 17. 11. 65 in his favour and thereafter his own possession up to first week of May 1973 on which date the defendant-respondents started to make violent invasion of his possession, if so its effect? Whether the Panchayat Samiti, Sumerpur has jurisdiction and legal authority to let out the disputed Abadi land in favour of Babu Lal defendant-respondent No. 3 in the year 1956 under the Rajasthan Panchayat (General) Rules, 1961. Whether Exs. A/1, A/2, A/5 and A/6 purported to have been issued from the office of Panchayat Samiti. Sumerpur had been forged by Shri Narain Lal, employee of Panchayat Samiti (defendant No. 2) in favour of Babulal (defendant No. 3) in collusion of Mohan Raj, the then Sarpanch DW 3 and Machha Ram, the then Secretary of Gram Panchayat, Sumerpur DW 5 to grab the land in dispute of the plaintiff-appellant through his wife, if so its effect? Whether the plaintiff-appellant is entitled to recover Rs. 820/- as mesne profits from the defendant-respondents up to the date of filing of the suit and thereafter further entitled to recover mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 40/-per month up to recovery of possession from them? Whether the suit was filed within limitation and finding contrary to it recorded by the learned trial Court is perverse ?

Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the suit for eviction to recover possession can be filed by a plaintiff against violent invasion of his possession on the basis of his possessory title. A person in possession of a piece of land in assumed character of ownership and exercising peacefully the ordinary rights of ownership has a perfectly good title against all the world but the true owner. The Court further held that the suit was filed within limitation and the finding of the trial court to the contrary was perverse.

Final Decision: The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment and decree of the trial court, and decreed the suit for declaration and recovery of possession after ejectment of the defendant-respondents and recovery of mesne profits of Rs. 820/- upto the date of filing the suit and further mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 40/- per month from the date of filing the suit till recovery of possession from the defendant-respondents.