Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M. HIDAYATULLAH, C.J.I., V. RAMASWAMI AND G.K. MITTER, JJ.
1. Beohar Rajendra Sinha and others (In C. A. No. 386 of 1966),
2. The State of M.P (In C. A. No. 387 of 1966), Appellants
Versus
1. The State of M.P and another (In C. A. No. 386 of 1966),
2. Mst. Maharaniahu and others (In C. A. No. 387 of 1966), Respondents.
Civil Appeals Nos. 386 and 387 of 1966,
D/- 11-3-1969.
Advocates Appeared
Mr. S. V. Gupte, Senior Advocate (P. C. Bhartari and J. B. Dadachanji, Advocates of M/s. J. B. Dadachanji and Co., with him), for Appellants ( in C. A. No. 386 of 1966) and Respondents (In C. A. No. 387 of 1966); Mr. I. N. Shroff, Advocate and Miss Rama Gupta, Govt. Advocate of Madhya Pradesh, for State of Madhya Pradesh.
The object of the notice under section 80, Civil Procedure Code is to give to the Government or the public servant concerned an opportunity to reconsider its or his legal position and if that course is justified to make amends or settle the claim out of Court. The section is no doubt imperative failure to serve notice complying with the requirements of the statute will entail dismissal of the suit. But the notice must be reasonably construed. Any unimportant error or defect cannot be permitted to be treated as an excuse for defeating a just claim. In considering whether the provisions of the statute are complied with, the Court must take into account the following matters in each case (1) whether the name, description and residence of the plaintiff are given so as to enable the authorities to identify the person serving the notice; (2) whether the cause of action and the relief which the plaintiff claims are set out with sufficient particularity; (3) whether a notice in writing has been delivered to or left at the office of the appropriate authority mentioned in the section; and (4) whether the suit is instituted after the expiration of two months next after notice has been served and the plaint contains a statement that such a notice has been so delivered or left.
(Para 5)
It is true that the terms of section 80 must be strictly complied with but that does not mean that the terms of the notice should be scrutinised in an artificial or pedantic manner. 1958 SCR 781 relied on.
(Para 6)
The notice was given by the Karta of the joint Hindu family. After the notice was given there was a partition of the joint family. The suit was filed by the former Karta and all other divided members of the joint family. The notice given by the Karta was sufficient in law to sustain a suit brought by all the divided coparceners who must be deemed to be as much another of the notice as the Karta who was the actual signatory of the notice. There was substantial identity between the person giving the notice and the persons bringing the suit. (1964) 4 SCR 945 relied on. AIR 1947 PC 197 & 76 IA 85 distinguished, F.A. No. 217 of 1959, noticed on page 433 of the Twelve Years' Digest reversed.
(Para 6)
(2) Practice – finding of fact–not based on any evidence–is vitiated.
Where the finding of fact is not based on any evidence, it is vitiated.
(Para 9)
(3) Khasra–entries in–possession entered in remarks column–shows neither ownership nor tenancy.
Where the owner is shown in the Khasra as the State 'Milkiyat Sarkar' the column regarding tenancy fight is blank, but a person is entered as in possession in the remarks column, the possession cannot be attributed to ownership or tenancy of the property. (Para 9)
(4) Revenue records–entries in–Settlement Instructions (CP)–possession over land–when may be the basis of ownership–ownership of land unknown–long possession proves title–land recorded as belonging to State–long possession is of no avail.
The Settlement Instructions of the Central Provinces laid down that persons in long possession of any land will not be required to prove their title.
Held: The passage applies to a case where the ownership of the land was unknown, i.e., where possession is proved for a long time, but its original letter could not be traced, and not to a case where the land is recorded as Government land.
(Para 10)
Judgement
RAMASWAMI, J.: These appeals are brought by special leave from the judgment of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh dated 16th April, 1963 in First Appeal No. 217 of 1959, whereby the High Court modified partly the judgment of the first Additional District Judge, Jabalpur dismissing Civil Suit No. 10-A of 1954.
2. The suit was instituted against the State of Madhya Pradesh by Beohar Raghubir Singh and his three grandsons. Beohar Raghubir Singh s son Beohar Rajendra Sinha, was a pro forma defendant. A notice under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code had been given by Raghubir Singh on 11th January, 1954. Plaintiffs 2, 3 and 4, his grand-sons were joined as plaintiffs because in a partition made subsequent to the giving of the notice, they were each entitled to 1/5th share along with the first plaintiff. Beohar Rajendra Sinha was joined as a defendant because he did not choose to join as the plaintiff. The plaintiffs sought a declaration (1) that the three nazul plots in suit had been in possession of the plaintiffs and their predecessors in their own right from time immemorial and their status was that a Raiyat Sarkar; and (2) that the order of the State Government in the Survey and Settlement Department refusing to recognise their possession over the plots was wrong and ultra vires. The dispute relates to Phoota Tal a tank situated within the town of Jabalpur. It was plot No. 282 in the settlement of 1863 A. D. Its area then was 5.24 acres. It was recorded as Malkiat Sarkar and in the last column there was an entry showing possession of Aman Singh Thakur Prasad. The next settlement took place in 1890-91. The survey number of Phoota Tal was changed to plot No. 325. Its area remained the same, it was recorded as "water (pani)" and in the last column, the entry showed the possession of Beohar Narpatsingh Raghubir Singh. The third settlement took place in 1909-10. The plot number of Phoota Tal was then changed to 327. Its area remained the same, it was still recorded as "water" but there was no entry in favour of any one showing possession. The nazul settlement took place in 1922-23. In this settlement the tank was given new numbers 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 and 171. Its area was recorded as 5.24 acres. In this settlement about 2 acres of land was found to be occupied by the Municipal Committee, Jabalpur. The land so found to be occupied was recorded in the possession of the Municipal Committee, Jabalpur and the remaining land was again recorded as "milkiat sarkar". There was no entry regarding possession in the remarks column so far as the remaining land was concerned. The plaintiffs alleged that Thakur Prasad and Aman Singh were their ancestors, that they had been in continuous possession of the disputed land and the omission to record their possession in the last two settlements of 1909-10 and 1922-23 was due to some oversight. In 1948 the first plaintiff made an application for correction to the Deputy Commissioner, Jabalpur, who made an order in his favour Ex. P-5. The order of the Deputy Commissioner was however set aside by the State Government on 28th May, 1953 and it was held that the plaintiffs had no title to the disputed land. The plaintiff therefore prayed for a declaration of the title to the disputed plots and for the correction of the entry in the settlement record showing the status of the plaintiff as that of "Raiyat Sarkar". The suit was contested by the state of Madhya Pradesh. It was urged that the plaintiff had no possession over the disputed land and the order of the State Government dated 28th May, 1953 was correct. It was contended that plaintiffs 2, 3 and 4 had no right to institute the suit because no notice under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code was given on their behalf. The suit was not contested by the second defendant Beohar Rajendra Sinha. By its judgment dated 24th January, l959 the trial Court held that there was no documentary evidence from 1891 to 1932 to support the possession of the anc
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
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
