SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1980 Supreme(All) 404

HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
K.N. SINGH, V.N. VERMA, JJ.
Municipal Board - Appellant
Versus
Abdul Hameed - Respondent
First Appeal No. 240 of 1968
Decided on : Oct 09, 1980

Advocates appeared:
V. Swarup, Mohd. Moonis, S.C. Ghildyal

A tenant is not entitled to a perpetual injunction against the owner or manager of the property to restrain eviction.

Headnote:

PERPETUAL INJUNCTION - OWNERSHIP OF PROPERTY - ADVERSE POSSESSION - TENANCY - NECESSARY PARTY - U. P. PUBLIC PREMISES (EVICTION OF UNAUTHORISED OCCUPANTS) ACT 1965 - SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT 1963, SECTION 38 - ADMISSION OF OWNERSHIP IN EARLIER SUIT - ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE - OWNERSHIP OF NAZUL LAND - PAYMENT OF RENT - LICENSE COUPLED WITH TRANSFER OF BUILDING SITE - TITLE TO PROPERTY - RIGHT TO EJECT TENANT.

Fact of the Case:

Plaintiffs, residents of Mehma Sarai, filed a suit for permanent injunction against the Municipal Board, Chandpur, to restrain interference with their right to reside in their houses and use the appurtenant land. The plaintiffs claimed ownership of the houses and land, alleging possession from the time of their ancestors, while the Municipal Board asserted that the land was Nazul land vested in the State Government and that the plaintiffs were tenants paying rent.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the State Government was the owner of the land and buildings in dispute, and that the plaintiffs' possession was permissive in nature. The court held that the plaintiffs had failed to prove their title to the property or their legal right to continue in possession, and that they were not entitled to a perpetual injunction against the Municipal Board.

Issues: 1. Whether the plaintiffs had title to the disputed property and a legal right to continue in possession. 2. Whether the State Government was a necessary party to the suit. 3. Whether the plaintiffs were entitled to a perpetual injunction against the Municipal Board.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the plaintiffs had failed to prove their title to the property or their legal right to continue in possession. The documentary evidence showed that the State Government was the owner of the land and buildings, and that the plaintiffs had been paying rent to the Municipal Board as tenants. The plaintiffs had not perfected their title by adverse possession. 2. The court held that the State Government was a necessary party to the suit because the plaintiffs' claim for a perpetual injunction would affect the State Government's right as owner of the property. 3. The court held that the plaintiffs were not entitled to a perpetual injunction against the Municipal Board because they had no legal right to continue in possession of the property.

Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment and decree of the trial court, and dismissed the plaintiffs' suit with costs.

JUDGMENT

K. N. Singh, J.

1. THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of Civil Judge, Bijnor, dated 20-3-1978 decreeing the plaintiff-respondent's suit.

2. THE plaintiff-respondents who are 68 in number filed a suit for permanent injunction, restraining the Municipal Board, Chandpur defendant-appellant from interfering with the plaintiff's right to reside in their houses and using the land appurtenant - thereto. The suit was filed with the allegations that the residential houses of the plaintiff are situated on plots Nos. 1507, 1508, 1557 and 1558 in Mohalla Bazar Mehma Sarai in the town of Chandpur. The plaintiffs are in possession of the houses situated thereon and they have been enjoying the open land as Sahan. The plaintiff further asserted that the said houses were in their occupation from the time of their ancestors and they have been repairing and building the said houses. The Municipal Board is not the owner of the houses and land and the land is not Nazul land. The plaintiffs have never paid any tax or rent to the Municipal Board in respect of their residential houses. The plaintiffs further asserted that they were illiterate persons. The Municipal Board taking advantage of their illiteracy obtained signatures while collecting subscriptions during the India-China war in 1962 and the Municipal Board has utilized those signatures for creating some documents against the plaintiffs. The Municipal Board has been trying to oust the plaintiffs from the houses lying in Mohalla Bazar Mehma Sarai treating them trespassers, the Municipal Board has been demanding rent from the plaintiffs on the ground that the site of their houses was Nazul land. The plaintiffs claimed for issue of a permanent injunction restraining the Municipal Board, Chandpur, from evicting them from their houses and from taking any action against the plaintiffs either to realise rent or to dispossess them from any of the houses, land or Sahan in any manner.

The defendant-appellant filed written statement and contested the suit. In its written statement the appellant pleaded that Mehma Sarai situate in Mohalla Bazar is government property and that the land and the houses standing on the plots in dispute situate in Mohalla Bazar Mehma Sarai vest in the State Government and it is Nazul land. The Municipal Board has been entrusted its management. The plaintiffs and their ancestors have been paying rents to the Municipal Board and every year they have been paying rent till 1963 and thereafter they refused to pay rent. Proceedings were taken for their ejectment. The appellant further pleaded that neither the plaintiff-respondents nor their ancestors acquired any legal right or title to the land or buildings, they are not the owners of the same. Since the plaintiffs have not been paying rent, they are liable to be ejected and they are not entitled to any relief of injunction by the court. The appellant further pleaded that the suit was bad for non-joinder of the State Government. The suit was further bad on the ground that 68 plaintiffs had their individual rights and they could not join together to file one suit. The appellant further pleaded that the plaintiffs had filed suits No. 253/63 and 353/63 in the court of Munsif, Bijnor on a similar relief which has been dismissed. The respondents were, therefore, not entitled to maintain the suit. No relief for injunction could be granted in the absence of declaratory relief.

3. THE learned Civil Judge held that the plaintiffs are the owners of their respective houses situate in Mohalla Bazar Mehma Sarai and their possession has remained undisturbed either by the State Government or by the Municipal Board, Chandpur for a long period. The trial court further held that since the houses of the plaintiffs have been in existence for more than 30 years and as no action was ever taken by the defendant-Board or the State Government to realise rent or premium, the plaintiffs acquired title to the land and the building











Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top