Back
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Bhandari and Khosla JJ.
Ammar Ahmed Khan
Versus
Union Of India
Regular First Appeal No. 93 of 1951,
Decided On : APRIL 21, 1954
LAND DISPUTE - OWNERSHIP - REVENUE RECORDS - PRESUMPTION OF CORRECTNESS - REBUTTAL BY EVIDENCE - POSSESSION WITHOUT PAYMENT OF RENT - ADVERSE ENTRIES IN REVENUE PAPERS - OMISSION TO CORRECT - EFFECT.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs, the Governor-General of India in Council and the Delhi Improvement Trust, sued the defendants, Mst. Qalsum-ul-Nissa and Messrs Ravi Brothers, for possession of a plot of land measuring 1988 square yards and for an injunction to close five doors opened by the defendants in the city wall. The defendants admitted the plaintiffs' ownership of a portion of the plot measuring 953 square yards but denied their claim to the remaining portion measuring 1035 square yards, referred to as the plot of land in question. The defendants claimed ownership of the plot of land in question and asserted that they and their predecessors-in-interest had been in possession of it since 1866.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the plot of land in question was part of the land for which the plaintiffs sought possession. The court also found that the defendants had established their ownership of the plot of land in question by producing various documents and evidence, including sale deeds, revenue papers, and the testimony of witnesses. The court further found that the entries in the revenue papers indicating Government's ownership of the plot of land in question were rebutted by the evidence produced by the defendants.
Issues: 1. Whether the plot of land measuring 1035 square yards sold by Mrs. Alien County in 1866 formed part of the land for which the plaintiffs sought possession. 2. Whether the revenue entries indicating Government's ownership of the plot of land in question should take precedence over the recitals in the sale deeds and other documents declaring Mst. Qalsum-ul-Nissa or her predecessors-in-interest as the owners thereof.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the plot of land sold by Mrs. Alien County was situate outside the city wall and extended to the river, and consequently that it formed part of the plot of land for which the plaintiffs sought possession. The court relied on the sale deed executed by Mrs. Alien County, which described the property as including a baghicha (orchard) below the city wall on the bank of the river Jamuna. 2. The court held that the presumption of correctness attaching to entries in the record of rights was rebutted by the evidence produced by the defendants, including sale deeds, revenue papers, and the testimony of witnesses. The court found that the defendants and their predecessors-in-interest had been in possession of the plot of land in question since 1866 without paying any rent or malkana to Government, and that this fact strongly supported the assertion made by the defendants that they were in possession of the property in their capacity as owners and not as tenants.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal to the extent that the plaintiffs were granted a decree for possession of 953 square yards, while the defendants were entitled to retain possession of the remaining plot of land measuring 1035 square yards lying alongside the city wall. The decree requiring the defendants to close the doors opening on the plot of land belonging to them was vacated.
Bhandari, J.
1. This first appeal raises the question whether a plot of land measuring 1035 square yards and situate along-side the city wall, old Delhi, is the property of Government or of Mst. Qalsum-ul-Nissa, defendant No. 1.
2. The plaintiffs in this case are the Governor-General of India in Council and the Delhi Improvement Trust while the contesting defendants are Mst. Qalsum-ul-Nissa, defendant No. 1 and Messrs Ravi Brothers, defendant No. 2.
3. On 30-4-1947 the plaintiffs brought a suit against the defendants for the possession of a plot of land, 1988 square yards in extent, situate outside the city wall of Delhi and for the issue of an Injunction requiring the defendants to close the five doors which were opened by them after breaking open a part of the city wall in June or July 1946. The defendants admitted that the plaintiffs were owners of a portion of the plot measuring 953 square yards but denied their claim in respect of the remaining portion measuring 1035 square yards, hereinafter referred to as the plot of land in question. They stated that the plot of land in question has always been the property of Mst. Qalsum-ul-Nissa or her predecessors-in-interest, that it has always been in the possession of the proprietors thereof, that the five doors which are alleged to have been opened in the city wall were opened long before the year 1866, and that as the plaintiffs were never in possession of the land during a period of sixty years immediately prior to the institution of the suit, the suit is barred by time. The trial Court found in favour of the plaintiffs and granted a decree against the defendants. The latter are dissatisfied with the order and have come to this Court in appeal.
4. The plaintiffs claim for possession is based almost entirely on the entries which appear in the record of rights. These entries indicate that Government is the owner of the plot in question and that the defendants are trespassers. The defendants, on the other hand, have produced a number of documents to show that this plot of land is their own exclusive property.
5. The documents on which the defendants rely may be taken first. On 21-6-1868 one Mrs. Allan County, who was the owner of the Danpur Estate consisting of two houses, out-houses, stables, etc., sold this estate and a Baghicha below the city wall on the bank of river Jamuna to one Wazir Singh for a sum of Rs. 22,000/-. The site occupied by the Kothis measured 7380 square yards and 16 biswas and that occupied by the baghieha measured 1035 square yards. On 28-8-1871 Mst. Surasti, widow of Wazir Singh, sold this property including the plot of land in question to Bankc Lal, Lal Singh and Kishan Singh for Rs. 15,000/-. On 25-11-1875 the property was partitioned and the plot of land in question fell to the share of Lal Singh and Kishan Singh. On 6-7-1385 Lal Singh and Kishan Singh sold the property to Shambhu Nath for Eg. 15,000/- and on 14-4-1888 Shambhu Nath sold this property to Kanwar Mohammad Masud Ali Khan for Rs. 15,500/-. On 12-3-1920 Mst. Qalsum-ul-Nissa, defendant No. 1, daughter of Kanwar Mohammad Masud Ali Khan created a Wakf-ul-aulad and constituted herself as mutwalli. On 20-5-1941 she executed a deed of lease for a period of twenty years in favour of Pandit Ram Chandar Bhardwaj, proprietor of Messrs. Ravi Brothers. It is common ground that Messrs. Ravi Brothers are in possession of the plot of land in question.
6. The revenue papers, which have been produced by the plaintiffs, show that during the period 1888-1839 a plot of land, of which the plot of land in question forms a part was owned by Government, was covered by an orchard and was in the possession of one Lal Singh tenant without payment of rent. During the period 1889 to 1901 the land is shown not as an orchard but as banjar jadid and the tenant is shown to be paying no rent but only the revenue and cesses leviable thereon. From 1900 to 1906 the plot of land is shown to be in the possession of Nawab M
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
