Back
(SUPREME COURT)
Anil R. Dave and Dipak Misra, JJ.
Tribhuvanshankar v. Amrutlal
Civil Appeal No.10316 of 2013 (arising out of SLP© No.15927 of 2008) : against the judgment and order passed in Second Appeal No.33/1995 by High Court of M.P., Bench at Indore; Decided on 13.11.2013.
Held : Once a finding was recorded that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant under the Scheme of the Act, there was no necessity to enter into an enquiry with regard to the title of the plaintiff based on the sale-deed or the title of the defendant as put forth by way of assertion of long possession. Similarly, the learned appellate Judge while upholding the finding of the learned trial Judge that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, there was no warrant to reappreciate the evidence to overturn any other conclusion. The High Court is justified to the extent that no equitable relief could be granted in a suit instituted under the Act. But, it has committed an illegality by affirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Judge because by such affirmation the defendant becomes the owner of the premises by acquisition of title by prescription. When such an enquiry could not have been entered upon and no finding could have been recorded and, in fact, the High Court has correctly not dwelled upon it, the impugned judgment to that extent is vulnerable and accordingly we set aside the said affirmation.
(2) Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (M.P.) -- Ss.12(1)(a) and 12(1)(e) -- suit under -- question of title in favour of any party -- cannot be enquired into -- on question of title and recovery of possession -- liberty granted for filing fresh suit.
Held : We have already opined that the High Court could not have affirmed the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court as it had already decided the issue of adverse possession in favour of the defendant, though it had neither jurisdiction to enquire into the title nor that of perfection of title by way of adverse possession as raised by the defendant. Under these circumstances we are disposed to think that the plaintiff is entitled under law to file a fresh suit for title and recovery of possession and such other reliefs as the law permits.
The issue of right, title and interest is definitely open. The appellant is required to establish the same in a fresh suit as required under law and the defendant is entitled to resist the same by putting forth all his stand and stance including the plea of adverse possession.
In the present case the pivotal point is whether a good cause because a litigant cannot deprive the benefit acquired by another in equity by his own inaction and negligence, as assumed by the plaintiff, has been lost forever as he has not been able to prove the relationship of landlord and tenant in a suit for eviction which includes delivery of possession.
Keeping in view the aforesaid principles it is required to be scrutinized whether the time spent in adjudication of the present suit and the appeal arrests the running of time for the purpose of adverse possession.
The appellant had filed the suit for eviction. The relief sought in the plaint was for delivery of possession. It was not a forum that lacked inherent jurisdiction to pass a decree for delivery of possession. It showed the intention of the plaintiff to act and to take back the possession. Under these circumstances, after the institution of the suit, the time for acquiring title by adverse possession has been arrested or remained in a state of suspension till the entire proceedings arising out of suit are terminated. Be it ingeminated that if by the date of present suit the defendant had already perfected title by adverse possession that would stand on a different footing. 1990 RN 303, 2001 RN 231 (SC), AIR 1947 Madras 282, AIR 1966 SC 735, AIR 1975 Cal. 200, AIR 2002 SC 136, (2009)15 SCC 693, AIR 1951 SC 177, (1995)6 SCC 580, (1990)4 SCC 286, (1933-34)61 IA 78:AIR 1934 PC 23, AIR 1964 SC 1254, (2004)10 SCC 779, (2007)6 SCC 59, AIR 1973 MP 72 and 1969 All LJ 975 referred to.
¼1½ LFkku fu;a=.k vf/kfu;e] 1961 ¼e-iz-½ && /kkjk 12¼1½¼d½ rFkk 12¼1½¼M+½ && dh O;kfIr && csn[kyh ds fy, okn && Hkw&Lokeh vkSj vfHk/kkjh dk lac/k LFkkfir ugh && gd ds iz’u ij fdlh i{kdkj ds es tk¡p && vko’;drk ugh && okn [kkfjt fd;k x;k rFkk izfroknh dks izfrdwy dCtk ds vk/kkj ij Lokeh ?kksf”kr fd;k && mPp U;k;ky; bl lhek rd U;k;kuqer gS fd lkE;kiw.kZ vuqrks”k iznku ugh fd;k tk ldrk Fkk && fdarq fopkj.k U;k;ky; ds fu.kZ; dks vfHkiq”V djus es voS/krk dkfjr dh xbZ gS && D;ksfd ,slh vfHkiqf”V ls && izfroknh fpjHkksx }kjk gd vtZu ls ifjlj dk Lokeh gks tkrk gSA vfHkfu/kkZfjr % tc ,d ckj ;g fu”d”kZ vfHkfyf[kr Fkk fd vf/kfu;e dh Ldhe ds v/khu Hkw&Lokeh vkSj vfHk/kkjh dk lac/k ugh Fkk] rc oknh dk fodz;&foys[k ij vk/kkfjr gd ;k izfroknh }kjk yacs dCtk ds vk/kkj ij gd dk fd;k x;k izk[;ku ds lac/k es tk¡p djus dh vko’;drk ugh FkhA leku :i ls] fo}ku vihy U;k;ky; dks tcfd fo)ku fopkj.k U;k;ky; dk ;g fu”d”kZ fLFkj j[kk gS fd i{kdkjks ds e/; Hkw&Lokeh vkSj vfHk/kkjh dk lac/k ugh Fkk] lk{; dk iquZewY;kadu dj fdlh vU; fu”d”kZ ds fy, myV nsus dk vf/kdkj ugh FkkA mPp U;k;ky; bl lhek rd U;k;kuqer Fkk fd vf/kfu;e ds v/khu lafLFkr okn es lkE;kiw.kZ vuqrks”k iznku ugh fd;k tk ldrk FkkA fdrq] blus fo}ku fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr fu.kZ; vkSj fMdzh vfHkiq”V djus es voS/krk dkfjr dh xbZ gS D;ksfd ,slh vfHkiqf”V ls izfroknh fpjHkksx }kjk gd vtZu ls ifjlj dk Lokeh gks tkrk gSA tc bl ij ,slh tk¡p gh ugh dh tk ldrh Fkh vkSj fu”d”kZ vfHkfyf[kr ugh fd;k tk ldrk Fkk rFkk] okLro es] mPp U;k;ky; us bl ij lgh :Ik ls fopkj ugh fd;k gS] vk{ksfir vkns’k bl lhek rd nks”kiw.kZ gS vkSj rn~uqlkj ge mi;qZDr iqf”Vdj.k vikLr djrs gSA ¼2½ LFkku fu;a=.k vf/kfu;e] 1961 ¼e-iz-½ && /kkjk 12¼1½¼d½ rFkk 12¼1½¼M½ && mica/kks ds v/khu okn && fdlh i{kdkj ds i{k ds gd dk iz’u && bl ij tk¡p ugh dh tk ldrh && gd ds iz’u rFkk dCtk izkIr djus ds fy, && u;k okn izLrqr djus ds fy, Lora=rk iznku dh xbZA\ vfHkfu/kkZfjr % ge igys gh O;Dr dj pqds gS fd mPp U;k;ky; fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr fu.kZ; vkSj fMdzh vfHkiq”V ugh dj ldrk Fkk D;ksfd ;g izfrdwy dCtk dk fook|d izfroknh ds i{k es igys gh fofuf’pr dj pqdk Fkk] rFkkfi bls u rks gd ij vkSj u gh izfrdwy dCtk }kjk gd dh iw.kZrk tSlk fd izfroknh }kjk mBk;k x;k Fkk] dh tk¡p djus dh vf/kdkfjrk ugh FkhA bu ifjfLFkfr;ks es ge ;g fuiVkjk djuk lksprs gS fd oknh gd vkSj dCtk izkfIr ds fy, u;k okn izLrqr djus ds fy, fof/k ds v/khu gdnkj gS rFkk ,sls vU; vuqrks”k ds fy, tSlk fof/k vuqer djsA vf/kdkj] gd vkSj fgr dk fook|d fuf’pr :i ls [kqyk gSA u, okn es tSlk fd fof/k ds v/khu visf{kr gS ogh LFkkfir djuk vihykFkhZ ls misf{kr gS rFkk izfroknh izfrdwy dCtk dk vfHkopu lfEefyr djrs gq, vius leLr vk/kkj rFkk vofLFkfr j[krs gq, mlh dk izfrfojks/k djus dk gdnkj gSA bl izdj.k es fu.kkZ;d Izk’u gS fd D;k vPNk gsrqd gS D;ksfd lkE;k es viuh Lo;a dh fuf”dz;rk ;k ykijokgh ls ,d eqdnesckt dks ,d vU; }kjk vftZr Qk;nk ls oafpr ugh fd;k tk ldrk] tSlk fd oknh }kjk dYiuk dh xbZ gS] og csn[kyh dk okn ftles dCtk izkfIr lfEefyr gS Hkw&Lokeh vkSj vfHk/kkjh dk lac/k lkfcr djus es vlQy jgus ls lnk ds fy, [kks pqdk gSA mi;qZDr fl)kar dks n`f”V es j[krs gq, ;g tk¡p djuk visf{kr gS fd D;k okn vkSj vihy ds U;k;fu.kZ;u es O;rhr le; izfrdwy dCtk ds iz;kstu ds fy, le; pkyw jgus dk izfrfojks/k djrk gSA bl izdj.k es vihykFkhZ us csn[kyh ds fy, okn izLrqr fd;k FkkA okn es pkgk x;k vuqrks”k dCtk lkSius ds fy, FkkA ;g leqfpr U;k;ky; ugh gS ftls dCtk lkSius dh fMdzh ikfjr djus dh varfufgZr vf/kdkfjrk dk vHkko gSA ;g n’kkZrk gS fd oknh dk mn~ns’; dk;Z djuk rFkk dCtk okil izkIr djuk gSA bu ifjfLFkfr;ks es] okn lafLFkr djus ds i’pkr~ izfrdwy dCtk }kjk gd vtZu ds fy, le; vo:) gks tkrk gS ;k okn dh mRiUu leLr dk;Zokfg;k¡ lekIr gks tkrh gS rc rd fuyacu es jgrk gSA ;g nksgjk;k tkrk gS fd ;fn bl okn dh rkjh[k dk izfrdwy dCtk }kjk izfroknh dk igys ls gh gd iw.kZ gks x;k gS rc fHkUUk vk/kkj ij cy nsuk gksxkA 1990 jk fu 303] 2001 jk fu 231 ¼mPpre U;k-½] , vkb vkj 1947 enzkl 282] , vkb vkj 1966 ,l lh 735] , vkb vkj 1975 dydÙkk 200] , vkb vkj 2002 ,l lh 136] ¼2009½ 15 ,l lh lh 693 , vkb vkj vkSj 1951 ,l lh 177] ¼1995½ 6 ,l lh lh 580] ¼1990½ 4 ,l lh lh 286] ¼1933&34½ 61 vkb , 78 % , vkb vkj 1934 ih lh 23] , vkb vkj 1964 ,l lh 1254] ¼2004½ 10 ,l lh lh 779] ¼2007½ 6 ,l lh lh 59] , vkb vkj 1973 ,e ih 72 rFkk 1969 byk- ,y ts 975 fufnZ”VA
Misra, J. -- 1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal, by special leave, is from the judgment and order of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Indore, in Second Appeal No. 33 of 1995 passed on 8.2.2008.
3. The appellant-plaintiff instituted Civil Suit No.259-A/86 in the Court of Civil Judge Class-II, Mhow, District Indore, for eviction of the respondent-defendant from the suit-premises and for mesne profits. The case of the appellant-plaintiff was that he had purchased the suit property vide registered sale-deed dated 1.4.1976 on payment of sale consideration of Rs.4,500/- to the vendor, one Kishanlal. The respondent-defendant was in possession of the said suit property as a tenant under the earlier owner Kishorilal on payment of rent of Rs.15/- per month. It was averred in the plaint that it was an oral tenancy and after acquiring the title the appellant informed the respondent about the sale by the earlier owner. Despite assurance given by the respondent to pay the rent to him, it was not honoured which compelled the appellant to send a notice on 14.12.1977 and, eventually, he terminated the tenancy with effect from 31.1.1978. The respondent, as pleaded, had replied to the notice stating, inter alia, that the appellant was neither the landlord nor the owner of the property. On the contrary, it was stated in the reply that the respondent was the owner of the premises.
4. The grounds that were urged while seeking eviction were :
(i) the defendant was in arrears of rent since 1.4.1976 and same was demanded vide notice dated 14.12.1977, which was received on 3.1.1978 and despite receiving the notice, the defendant defaulted by not paying the rent within two months;
(ii) that the said accommodation was bona fide required by the plaintiff for construction of his house and the accommodation is an open land;
(iii) the said accommodation was bona fide required by the plaintiff for general merchant shop i.e. non-residential purpose and for the said purpose the plaintiff did not have any alternative accommodation in his possession in Mhow City.
5. In the written statement, the defendant disputed the right, title and interest of the plaintiff, and denied the relationship of landlord and tenant. That apart, a further stand was taken that the appellant had no right under the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (for brevity “the Act”) to file the suit for eviction. It was set forth by the respondent-defendant that he was never a tenant under Kishorilal and, in fact, the accommodation was in a dilapidated condition and a ‘banjar’ land and the respondent was in possession for 18 to 19 years and it was to the knowledge of Kishorilal and his elder brother. For the purpose of business he had constructed a Gumti, got the gate fixed and when the business relating to sale of furniture commenced there was no objection from Kishorilal or his brother or any family member. The possession, as put forth by the respondent, was uninterrupted, peaceful and to the knowledge of Kishorilal who was the actual owner. It was also set forth that when Kishorilal desired to sell the premises, he was put to notice about the ownership of the defendant but he sold the property without obtaining sale consideration with the sole intention to obtain possession by colluding with the appellant-plaintiff. Alternatively, it was pleaded that the premises is situate in the Cantonment area and the Cantonment Board has the control over the land and neither Kishorilal nor the appellant had any title to the same.
6. The learned trial Judge framed as many as 26 issues. The relevant issues are, whether the suit accommodation was taken on rent by the defendant for running his wood business in the year 1973 from the earlier landlord Kishorilal; whether defendant is in continuous, unobstructed and peaceful possession since 18 years which was within the knowledge of Kishorilal, his elder brother and their family members; whether defendant had become owner of the suit accommodation by
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
