Back
High Court Of Himachal Pradesh
P.D.DESAI,V.P.GUPTA
CHET RAM - Appellant
Versus
SAWANU RAM - Respondent
L. P. A, No. 22 of 1971
Decided On : 08/30/1984
NAUTOR LAND GRANT - H.P. NAUTOR RULES, 1954 - SECTION 23, INDIAN CONTRACT ACT - VALIDITY OF AGREEMENT TO TRANSFER NAUTOR LAND - PUBLIC POLICY.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiffs filed a suit for permanent prohibitory and mandatory injunction claiming equal ownership and possession of the disputed land, alleging a compromise agreement with the defendant, who was granted the land as nautor by the government.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the agreement between the parties was unenforceable under Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act as it was against public policy and the purpose of the nautor grant, which was to provide subsistence to landless or small landholding individuals.
Issues: 1. Whether the agreement dated 15-12-1954 (Ex. P W 4/A) was valid and binding? 2. Whether the defendant No. 1 had the authority to transfer his ownership rights to third persons? 3. Whether the agreement (Ex. P W 4/A) defeated the purpose of the nautor grant?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The nautor land grant was made to the defendant for subsistence purposes, subject to specific conditions and obligations. 2. The agreement to transfer 8/9th share of the land to the plaintiffs was a circumvention of the government's policy to provide subsistence to landless or small landholding individuals. 3. The agreement was against public policy and therefore unenforceable under Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the plaintiffs' appeal, upholding the lower court's decision that the agreement was unenforceable and the plaintiffs could not claim any relief based on it.
V. P. Gupta, J.— In this Letters Patent Appeal the appellants are the plaintiffs while the respondents are the defendants in the main suit.
2. The plaintiffs filed a suit on 23/7.1964 in the Court of Senior Sub Judge, Mandi for permanent prohibitory and mandatory injunction to the effect that the land of khasra Nos. 2649/314 and 2651/1618 (2 plots) measuring 3 bighas and 14 biswas of Jamabandi 1959-60 in village Mahadev, Tehsil Sunder Nagar is in possession of the parties in equal shares and defendant No. 1 (Chamaru) be directed to refrain from causing interference in the ownership and possession of the plaintiffs in any manner.
3. The plaintiffs alleged that the disputed land was government land which was granted to defendant No. 1 as nautor. The plaintiffs objected to this grant of nautor. A compromise in writting was effected between the parties on 15.12.1954. According to the compromise/agreement, the parties came in possession of the disputed land in equal shares, each party having l/9th share. Defendant No. 1 also agreed to get a mutation sanctioned in , plaintiffs favour. The plaintiffs were also put in possession of the land and they did not doubt the bona fide of defendant No.
1. The plaintiffs alleged that after 12,7.1964 the defendant No. 1 started interfering with the plaintiffs possession over the suit land and as such they were compelled to file the suit.
4. The defendants did not admit the plaintiffs claim and contested the suit. The alleged agreement/compromise was denied and it was further alleged that the same was void and unenforceable.
5. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed on 5.1,1965 :—
1. Whether the plaintiffs are owners and in possession of the land in suit ? OPP
2. Whether the defendant No. 1 is causing interference in the posses sion of the plaintiffs over the land in suit ? OPP
3. Whether the suit is within time? OPP
4. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPP
5. Whether the defendant No- 1 is estopped from denying the execution of the suit agreement? OPP
6. Whether the defendant No. 1 had executed the agreement dated 15.12.1964? OPP
7. If Issue No. 6 is found in affirmative, whether said agreement is void for the reason set out in the written statement?
6. The Senior Sub Judge gave findings on issues Nos. 1 to 3 and 6 in favour of the plaintiffs and decided issues Nos. 4, 5 and 7 against the defendants. As a result of these findings the plaintiffs suit for declaration and injunction was decreed on 30.11,1966.
7. The defendants preferred an appeal in the court of District Judge Mandi who accepted the appeal on 17.10.1967 and dismissed the plaintiffs suit. He held that the agreement dated 15-12-1954 (Ex. P W 4/A) was simply a paper transaction and was never acted upon and the suit was barred by limitation. The agreement Ex. P W 4/A was held to be against the spirit of the nautor patta (Ex. D-l).
8. Dissatisfied with this judgment and decree of the District Judge, he plaintiffs filed an appeal in this court (R. S. A. No. 24 of 1968), A learned Single Judge of this court vide his judgment and decree dated 16-4-1971 dismissed the appeal with costs. He held that the disputed land was leased out to defendant No. 1 by the government and defendant No. 1 could not confer any rights upon the plaintiffs by any compromise (Ex. P W 4/A). He further held that the suit was time barred and the agreement dated 15 12-1954 (Ex. P W 4/A) was never acted upon.
9. Now before us the learned counsel for the appellants (plaintiffs) con tended that the agreement dated 15-12-19M (Ex. P W 4/A) was valid and binding and defendant No. 1 had handed over the possession of the land to the plaintiffs. He contended that defendant No. 1 was competent to do so and the findings of the learned District Judge and the Single Judge of this Court were not based upon proper appreciation of law and facts. He frankly conceded that the Himachal Pradesh Nautor Rules, 1954 (hereinafter the nautor rules) h
AI
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
