Back
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Mehar Singh and Bal Raj Tuli JJ.
Sada Ram
Versus
Gajjan Shiama
Letter Patent Appeal No. 4 of 1964,
Decided On : NOVEMBER 12, 1969
TENANCY - FORFEITURE - DENIAL OF LANDLORD'S TITLE - SECTION 111(G) OF THE TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT, 1882 - APPLICABILITY - PUNJAB - DENIAL OF TENANCY IN WRITTEN STATEMENT - EFFECT - FORFEITURE OF TENANCY - RIGHT TO POSSESSION.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff-respondent filed two suits for possession of land against the defendants-appellants, who were reversioners of the plaintiff's predecessor-in-interest. The plaintiff claimed that the defendants were tenants under the predecessor-in-interest and had forfeited their tenancy by denying the plaintiff's title and setting up a title in themselves. The defendants denied that they were ever tenants and asserted that they had acquired ownership by adverse possession.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court and the appellate court found that the defendants were tenants under the plaintiff's predecessor-in-interest and had forfeited their tenancy by denying the plaintiff's title and setting up a title in themselves. The court also found that the defendants had not acquired ownership by adverse possession.
Issues: 1. Whether the defendants were tenants under the plaintiff's predecessor-in-interest? 2. Whether the defendants forfeited their tenancy by denying the plaintiff's title and setting up a title in themselves? 3. Whether the defendants acquired ownership by adverse possession?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the defendants were tenants under the plaintiff's predecessor-in-interest based on the evidence presented in the case. 2. The court held that the defendants forfeited their tenancy by denying the plaintiff's title and setting up a title in themselves, relying on Section 111(g) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, which provides that a lease of immovable property would be determined by forfeiture in case the lessee renounces his character as such by setting up a title in a third person or by claiming title in himself. 3. The court held that the defendants did not acquire ownership by adverse possession, as they had not been in possession of the land for the required period of time.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeals filed by the defendants, upholding the decrees of possession granted to the plaintiff by the trial court and the appellate court.
Balraj Tuli, J.
1. This judgment will dispose of L. P. A. 4 of 1964 Sada Ram and others v. Gajjan and L. P. A. 5 of 1964 Bhagat Ram v. Gajjan, as they have been directed against the same judgment of the learned Single Judge.
2. The facts are that Gajjan, respondent, filed two suits, one against Dhani Ram and others and the other against Bhagat Ram, for possession of the land mentioned in each suit. That land was inherited by Smt. Malaro after the death of her husband, Hazari, in 1933-34. The appellants in these appeals, who were defendants in the two suits, were reversioners of Hazari and cultivated the land, After the enforcement of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, Smt. Malaro made a gift of the land in dispute in favour of Gajjan, plaintiff-respondent. In the plaints it was alleged that the defendants (appellants) cultivated the land as tenants under Smt. Malaro and paid her some grain and a certain fixed sum of money by way of rent, that after the enforcement, of the Hindu Succession Act, Smt. Malaro became absolute owner and made a Gift of the property to the plaintiff who asked the defendants to accept him as the landlord and pay the rent to him but the defendants refused to do so and claimed ownership in themselves. For this reason, it was stated that the defendants had forfeited their right as tenants of the land and the plaintiff was entitled to the possession thereof after ejecting them. In the written statements filed in both the cases, the defendants denied that they were ever tenants under Smt. Malaro. Their plea was that Smt. Malaro surrendered the entire estate inherited by her from her husband in their favour, and, in return, they gave her some money and some grain by way of maintenance and not by way of rent. They also asserted that Smt. Malaro did not become an absolute owner of the land because she was not in possession thereof on the date the Hindu Succession Act came into force and the plaintiff had no right to claim any rent or possession of the land from them. Lastly, they pleaded that in any case they had become owners by adverse possession. In the suit against Dhani Ram and others it was also stated in paragraph 4 as follows:-
-
"The possession of the defendants is with the consent and permission of Smt. Malaro and they have been paying the share of the harvests to her and are ready to do so, and for this reason, the suit is triable only by a revenue Court. The defendants are all ready to give the grains at all times."
3. On the pleadings of the parties the following issues were settled in the suit against Bbagat Ram:-
-
(1) Whether Smt. Malaro surrendered her estate in favour of her next reversioners, including the defendant? If so, when and to what effect?
(2) If Issue No. 1 is not proved, whether the defendant is a tenant under the plaintiff?
(3) Whether Smt. Malaro was not competent to make gift of the property in suit in favour of the plaintiff?
(4) Whether the suit is time-barred?
(5) Whether the defendant has acquired title by adverse possession?
(6) If Issue No. 2 is proved, whether this Court had the jurisdiction to try this suit?
4. The evidence was mainly led in the suit against Bhagat Ram and that evidence was agreed by the parties to be read in the other case also in addition to the witnesses examined in that case. The trial Court came to the conclusion that there was no surrender of the estate, that the defendants were tenants under Smt. Malaro, that she was competent to make the gift and that no title had been acquired by the defendants by way of adverse possession. The trial Court further concluded that the defendants had forfeited their right as tenants by denial of the title of the landlord and setting up the title in themselves. Consequently, a decree for possession of the land was passed in favour of the plaintiff in each case. The findings of the trial Court were confirmed by the learned Senior Subordinate Judge, Kangra, in appeal and against the decrees passed by the learned
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
