Back
1927 Supreme(Nagpur) 200
HIGH COURT OF NAGPUR
Findlay
DADOO AND ORS – Appellant
Versus
SUKHA – Respondent
Decided on : 29-09-1927
The central legal point established in the judgment is that the tenancy right was extinguished with the loss of the remedial right to recover possession, and the suit was barred by the relevant provisions of the Tenancy Act.
Headnote:
Forfeiture - Tenancy Act - The court held that the tenancy right was extinguished with the loss of the remedial right to recover possession, and the suit was barred by Section 104, Tenancy Act, combined with Article 1, Schedule 2.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs argued that there was no forfeiture or extinction of the tenant's right, and that the land should have been held to be in their possession from 1922 to 1926. The lower appellate Court found that the original tenants had not been in possession since at least 1921-22, and that the defendant-respondent was in possession from 1922 onwards.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the suit was clearly barred by Section 104, Tenancy Act, combined with Article 1, Schedule 2, and dismissed the appeal, ordering the appellants to bear the respondent's costs.
Issues: The issues revolved around the forfeiture or extinction of the tenant's right and the possession of the land by the parties involved.
Ratio Decidendi: The tenancy right was held to be extinguished with the loss of the remedial right to recover possession, and the suit was found to be clearly barred by the relevant provisions of the Tenancy Act.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the appellants were ordered to bear the respondent's costs, in line with the judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court.
Findlay, J C—The first point raised on (behalf of the plaintiffs appellants is that, although the remedy by way of suit by them is lost having regard to Article 1, Schedule 2, Tenancy Act, there was no forfeiture or extinction of the tenant's right incurred by them. For this view, authority has been quoted in the shape of the judgment of Kinkhede, A.J.C., in Banan v. Ranjit Singh, 1926 AIR(Nag) 99. I have already, in my judgment in Kapoor v. Nanhi, 1928 AIR(Nag) 280, seen reason to disagree from that decision. I may further point out that, as regards the present case, Section 28, Lim. Act, does apply in view of the provision contained in Section 104, Sub-section (4), Tenancy Act of 1920. I am in full agreement with the decision in Dalip Rai v. Deoki Rai,1899 21 ILR(All) 204, that the tenancy right was extinguished with the loss of the remedial right to recover possession.
2. A further suggestion has been made that the land should have been held to be in possession of the plaintiff-appellants from 1922 to 1926. I am wholly unable to find any sound basis for this contention. The perfectly proper finding of fact arrived at by the lower appellate Court is that the original tenants have not been in possession since at least 1921-22 and it irrevocably follows therefrom that Section 104, Tenancy Act, combined with Article 1, Schedule 2, thereto is a bar to the present suit. In any event, the lower appellate Court, after a careful consideration of the evidence, has held that the defendant-respondent was in possession from 1922 onwards, and it has further held that the plaintiffs' allegation that they were dispossessed on 30th August 1925 was incorrect.
3. In those circumstances I cannot see the slightest ground for disturbing the judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court that the present suit was clearly barred. The appeal is dismissed. The appellants must bear the respondent's costs. Costs in the lower Courts as already ordered.
Final Result : Dismissed
