Back
Himachal Pradesh High Court
OM PARKASH
Daulat Ram - Appellant
Versus
Huma Nand - Respondent
Decided On : 01/15/1965
ABOLITION ACT - TENANCY DISPUTE - JURISDICTION OF CIVIL COURT - COMPENSATION OFFICER'S DECISION - FINALITY - SECTION 12(2)(C) AND 12(4) - SECTION 92 - INTERPRETATION AND EFFECT.
Fact of the Case:
Daulat Ram appellant filed an application under Section 11 of the Himachal Pradesh Abolition of Big Landed Estates and Land Reforms Act (Abolition Act) for the acquisition of proprietary rights in the land in suit. The Compensation Officer dismissed the application, holding that Daulat Ram had failed to prove that he was a tenant of the land. Daulat Ram appealed to the District Judge, who affirmed the Compensation Officer's decision. Huma Nand respondent, who had purchased the property from the original proprietor, filed a suit for possession of the land and mesne profits against the appellants, Daulat Ram and Chet Ram. The appellants claimed that Daulat Ram was a tenant and Chet Ram had relinquished his tenancy.
Finding of the Court:
The Senior Subordinate Judge held that the finding of the Compensation Officer, affirmed by the District Judge, that Daulat Ram was not a tenant, was final and binding, and that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to try the question of Daulat Ram's tenancy was barred by reason of the provisions of Sub-Sections (2)(c) and (4) of Section 12 of the Abolition Act. The Senior Subordinate Judge also held that Chet Ram was a tenant but had relinquished his tenancy and that his possession was also unlawful. Thus, the conclusion of the Senior Subordinate Judge was that both the appellants were in unlawful possession of the property and were liable to be ejected and to pay mesne profits for their wrongful possession.
Issues: 1. Whether the finding of the Compensation Officer that Daulat Ram was not a tenant, given in the application under Section 11 of the Abolition Act, barred the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to try the question of Daulat Ram's tenancy. 2. Whether Section 92 of the Abolition Act, which lays down that nothing in the Act shall affect the right of any person to establish his claim in respect of any land or part thereof by due process of law in the Court, having jurisdiction, overrides Section 12(2)(c) and Section 12(4) and that the Civil Court was competent to try the plea of Daulat Rain appellant about the tenancy, under that section, in spite of the fact that the Compensation Officer had given a decision against him.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The provisions of Section 12(2)(c) and Section 12(4) of the Abolition Act bar the jurisdiction of a Civil Court to try an issue whether a particular person was or was not a tenant, when the Compensation Officer had already recorded a finding on that issue in proceedings, relating to an application under Section 11, which is closely connected with Section 12 of the Abolition Act, filed by that person. 2. Section 92 of the Abolition Act is a general provision, and does not override the special provision contained in Section 12(2)(c) and Section 12(4). Section 92 will be applicable to those cases, which are not covered by Section 12 or any other specific provision of the Abolition Act or where a person, adversely affected, by the order of the Compensation Officer, was under some disability and was not properly represented or had no notice of the proceedings and had no opportunity to present his case.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed with costs of Huma Nand respondent. The legal representatives of Bishan Lal respondent were to bear their own costs.
JUDGMENT :- This appeal, against a decree of the Senior Subordinate Judge, Mahasu, has arisen out of a suit, instituted by Huma Nand respondent, against the appellants and Bishan Lal respondent, for possession of land and buildings, standing thereon, situate in village Badah, Tehsil Kasumpti, District Mahasu and for the recovery of Rs. 1200/-, as mesne profits, and, in the alternative, for the recovery of Rs. 5200/-. The suit was based on the following allegations :
2. The property, in suit, belonged to Bishan Lal respondent. He had sold it to Huma Nand respondent, for the sale price of Rs. 4000/-, by a registered sale-deed, dated 18th March 1960. One of the conditions of the sale was that the vendor was bound to deliver vacant possession of the property sold, to the vendee. But Huma Nand respondent could get possession of half the building only. The rest of the property was in the unlawful possession of the appellants. Daulat Ram appellant had made an application, under S. 11 of the Himachal Pradesh Abolition of Big Landed Estates and Land Reforms Act, before the Compensation Officer, Mahasu, for the acquisition of proprietary rights in the land, in suit. His application was dismissed. The Compensation Officer held that Daulat Ram had failed to prove that he was a tenant of the land. An appeal, by Daulat Ram, to the District Judge, Mahasu, failed. The District Judge affirmed the finding of the Compensation Officer that Daulat Ram appellant had failed to prove that he was a tenant of the land. Despite the rejection of the application and the appeal, the appellants continued to be in unlawful possession of the property and refused to deliver possession. Huma Nand respondent filed a suit, praying that he be put in possession of the property and granted a decree for Rs. 1200/-, as mesne profits for the unlawful possession of the property, by the appellants. There was an alternative prayer, in the suit, that in case, it be found, that the appellants were not liable to be ejected from, and to deliver possession of, the property, then a decree for Rs. 5200/- - Rs. 4000/- the sale consideration and Rs. 1200/- as damages be passed in favour of Huma Nand, against Bishan Lal, respondent.
3. The suit was contested by the appellants. Though they had filed separate written statements, yet the pleas, taken up, were substantially the same. The main plea of the appellants, which is relevant for the decision of the present appeal, was that Daulat Ram appellant was in lawful possession of the property, in suit, as a tenant and was not liable to be ejected and that Chet Ram appellant was neither in possession of the property nor had he any concern with it. It was not denied that the application of Daulat Ram appellant, for acquisition of proprietary rights, was dismissed, by the Compensation Officer and an appeal, against that decision, was dismissed by the District Judge.
4. Bishan Lal, respondent, in his written statement, admitted that he had sold the property, in suit, to Huma Nand respondent. He also supported the case of Huma Nand that the appellants were in unlawful possession of the property. He denied that he had undertaken to deliver vacant possession of the property, or that he was liable to refund the sale price or to pay damages.
5. The learned Senior Subordinate Judge held that the finding of the Compensation Officer, affirmed by the District Judge that Daulat Ram appellant was not a tenant, was final and binding on all concerned, and that the question, whether Daulat Ram appellant was a tenant could not be re-agitated in a Civil Court. The learned Senior Subordinate Judge, therefore, held that Daulat Ram appellant was not a tenant and was in wrongful possession of the property. The learned Senior Subordinate Judge, further, held that Chet Ram appellant was a tenant but he had relinquished the tenancy and that his possession was also unlawful. Thus, the conclusion of the learned Senior Subordinate Judge was that both the appel
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
