SURAJNATH AHIR AND OTHERS versus PRITHINATH SINGH AND OTHERS

1962 Rojinder Knmar v. Stale 1f Punjab D<DGuptaJ,

1962 May4.

establish the prosecution case that Jagdish after knowing on the January 5, 1961 .. thn,t an offence had been committed by the murder of Tonny caused some evidence of the commission of that offence to disappear with the intention of screening the offender from legal punishment. He has there. fore been ril!htly convicted under s. 204 of the Indian Penal Code 11.nd the sentence pase9d on him is proper.

The appeal is accordiugly dismissed.

Appeal dismissed.

SURAJNATH AHIR AND OTHERS

PRITHINATH SINGH AND OTHERS

(K. C. DAS GUPTA and RAGHUBAR DAYAL, JJ.)

Land Reform-Suit for recovery of possession after rt· liemption of mortgage-Limitation-Vesting of e.<tates in th• State-Subsisting title to possession, if confer• right l-0 recover posses1ion-Bihar Lana Reforms Act, 1950 (Bih•r XXX of 1950), ss. 2(k) 3(1), 4(a), 4(/), 6(1) (a) (b), (c).

The plaintiff-respondents sued the appellants for re-covery of possession of the lands in dispute. The appdlants had ent<red into possession of the lands on the strength of mortgage d,eed. The mortgagors executed another mortgage with respect to their milkiat -interest in favour of certain persons. The plaintiff.respondents bought the milkiat rights shares together with the ka•ht lands from the mortgagors · and entered into posci:ession of the milki'lt property and sub .. sequently redeemed the mortgage deeds in 1943. The appel-lants however did not make over pos!les!!ion of the lands in dispute after the mort~ages had been redeemed. The trial court found that the plaintiff·re<pondents had no subsisting title to the lands and that the suit was barred by adverse possession and limitati9n. The High Court, on appeal filed by the plaintiff-respondents, allowed the appeal on the

3 S.C.R.

::,UPREM . .I!.: UOURT REPORTS

~round that the defendant-a.pp·Jlants were in possession only as mortgagees and that after the redemption of the mortgage they had no right to continue in possession.

The appellants than appealed to the Supreme Court by certificate granted by the High Court. Apart from the ques-tions of estoppel and limi1atioQ. by aoverse possession the main point which was raised in the appeal was that the plaintiff-res-pondent had no 1ubsisting title to evict the appellant in view of the provisions of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950.

Hela, that the suit was instituted within twelve years of the redemptirm of the mortgage deed and was not there-fore barred by limitation.

Section 4 of the Act vests in the State all the interests of the proprietor or tenure-holder, including the right to recover posseision from the trespasser, except those interests which are expressly sav1~d by the Act. Since no mortgage subsisted on the date the vesting in the State the respon-dent could not take advantage of s.6(1) \c) oftheAct (as amended by Act XVI of 1959).

The mere fact that proprietor had subsisting tit!~ to possession over certain land on the date of vesting would not make that land under his 'Khas Possession'. The res-pondents lost their right to recover possession from the appellants even if they were trespassers, on their estate vest-ing in the State.

Brijnandan Singh v. Jamuna Prasad A. I. R. 1958 Pat. 589, Haji Sk. Subhan v. Madhorao [1962] Supp. l S.C.R. 123.

CIVIL APPELLA'I'E JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 533 of 1960.

Appeal from th1~ judgment and decree dated January 28, 1959, of the Patna High Conrt, in Appeal from Original Decree No. 143 of 19i8. B. K. Saran and J(. L. Mehta, for the appel-lants.

R. K. Garg, D. P. Singh, S. 0. Agarwal and

M. K. Ramamurthi, :t'or the respondents.

1962 May 4. Tho Judgment of the Court was delivered by

S urajnath hir •• Prithinath Singh

292 SUPREM:JTI COURT REPORTS [1963]

RAGHUB.AR DAYAL, J.-This appeal, on certi· ficate granted by the High Court of Judicature at Patna, arises in the following circumstances:

Suraj'l.ath A.ltir v, l"riehinath Sin:h

The plaintiffs-respondents sued the appellants R"1hui•r D~ al J. · for the recovery of possession of the disputed lands and mesne profits as the family of the defendants did not have any raiyat interest in the disputed lands except rehan interest under the rehan deed dated July ;;, 1906, and that subsequent to the redemption of that deed, they had no right to remain in possession 11nd occupation of the disputed lands.

The plaintiffs alleged that Pranpat Bhagat and others held eight annas share of milkiat interest in village Sovathra, pargana Nonaur, tauzi No. 3879 and that the other eight annas share was held by Kunj Bihari Bhagat and others. These persons also held khudkasht lands in the village and that such lands were treated as kasht lands. In 1906 Ram Autar Bhagat, one of the members of the joint family of Pranpat Bhagat, executed the mortgage deed with respect to 15 bighas of land out of 16 bighas of kasht lands, to Sheo Dehin Ahir, on behalf of his joint family. The defendants entered into possession on the basis of that mortgage deed, they having had no connection with the land mort-gaged prior to the execution of the mortgage deed.

Later on, in 1912, Ram Lal Bhagat and l\funni Bhagat, of Pranpat's family, executed an-other mortgage deed with respect to their entire milkiat interest in favour of Jatan Ahir and Ram Saran Abir who also belonged to tbe family of Sheo Dehin Ahir. They then got into possf\Esion of the fresh land which had been mortgaged. ·

Ram Lal Bhagat and others sold their milkiat share together with the kasht lands to the plain-tiffs in 1915. The plantiffs entered into posseseion

of the milkiat property and subsaqnently redeemed the mortgage deerls in 1943. The plaintiffa also ,purchased four annas share beloging to the branch of Kunj Bihari Bhagat, The other four annas share of that branch was purchased by Raja Singh who then sold it to Ram Ek~al Singh, impleaded as defendant No. 6 in the plaint, The defendants, however, did not make over possession of the land in suit after the mortgage deeds had been redeemed and hence the suit was instit.uted for declaration arid recovery of possession.

The defendants 1 to 5 did not admit the allegations made by the plaiD.tiffs and stated the real state of affairs to be 'that. the disputed lands were never the bakasht lands of the proprietors of the village and were really the raiyati. qaimi kasht lands of the defendants. that the plaintiffs. never purchased the disputed lande, that the disputed. lands were the raiyati kasht lands of Ram Autar Bhagat only, who let out the disputed lands in rehan under different rehan deeds alleging them to be raiyati kasht lands, and who had earlier treated it as his exclusive raiyati kasht lands, and that, ultimately, Ram Aut&r Bhagat sold the disputed lands to the defendants and got their names entered as qaimi raiyati kushtkars. It wae further alleged that the defendants bad acquired title to the land in suit by virtue of adverse possession.

The trial Court found that the plaintiffs had no subsistii:ig title to the lands in suit as those lands were not sold to the plantiffs who had pur-chased the milkiat interest including the bakasht and zerat lands, that the suit was barred by adverse possession also and that it was barred by limitation. It therefore dismissed the. suit.

On· appeal, tb.e High Court held that the plaintiffs did purchase the land in suit and that the defendants were in possession only as mortgagees.

1962 Surajnalh Ahir •• Pr£thina!h Sing,. Raghubar DaJal J,

SurajnalJi Ahir v. ~ Prithinath Singh:. Baghubar Dayal J.

and that, after the redemption of the mortgage, they had no right to continue in· possession. It therefore allowed the appeal and decreed the plain-tiffs' suit. The defendants have now filed this appeal.

Learned counsel for the appellants has urged five points :

( 1 ) The record of rights supported the case of the defendants that they were the qaimi ·raiyats and that the High Court wrongly construed them.

(2) The sale deed of 1915 in favour of

the respondents did not include the land in suit.

(3) Even if the plaintiffs-respondents

. (3) Even if the plaintiffs-respondents acquired right to the land in suit by purchase, they are estopped from taking any action against the defendants-appellants who had been in possession for long.

( 4) The suit is barred by limitation as

the defendants had perfected their title by adverse possession and the plaintiffs had not been in possession within limitation~

( 5) The plaintiffs-respondents had no

subsisting title to evict the appellants in view of the provisions of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 (Bihar Act XXX of 1950).

The case set up by the defendants with respect

to their acquiring the qaimi raiyati kasht rights, in their written statement, has been disbelieved by the Courts below and, we think, rightly. It follows that the defendants were in possession of the land · in suit only as mortgagees as held by the Court below and tjiat they had no right to possession after the mortgage had been redeemed.

3 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS

By the sale deed dated October 5, 1915, Ram Lal Bhagat and others sold the property described thus in the sale deed:

"8 (eight) annas ancestral milkiat interest, out ofTauzi No. 3879, in mauza Sewathra, pergana Nana.ur, thana Pito, district IShahabad, Sub·registry office Jagdishpur, the. Sadar Jama. whereof is Rs. 190/-which has been in {lossession and occupa-tion of us, the executants without copart-nership and iuterference by anybody together with all the present Zamindari rights appertaining thereto, without excluding any interest and profit, together with Zirat landn which have been recor-. ded in the surv1~y papers in the names of us, the executants as bakasht (landa) and new and old party lands, aam and Khas Ohairmazrua lands, baharsi dih, house of the tenants. ground rent, ahar, pond, reservoir, tank, orchard, fruit-bearing and non-fruit·bearing trees and bamboo-clumps that is the entire lands and profit (derived from) zamindari below and above the surfaoe existing or which may be derived in future without excluding anything."

They emphasized the extent of the sale property further by saying:

"We, the exeeutants, gave up and relinquished our respective possession and occupation of vended property today. The entire interest excluding only the chaukidari chakran (service) land which has been let out in settlement with us, the ex!lcutants is being sold. The chaiikidari land only is not being sound (sic)."

up and

196! Surajnath Ahir V.· Ptilhinath Singh R•:hubarDa_ral J

It. is· cl~ar therefore, as· held. by the Higii Co~rt, that the land in suit which is included in the milkiat . share was not excepted from· sale. · The 'only· pro· perty excluded from sale was the chaukidari chakran · · · •

1[9]~[2 ]·.\

siUaj.Oii. :ihir . . . v. . .. Pnth•!•.th s .. ,,

,, '-:;-.·'.'land•

· Ragin.bar DOJal Ji

· ···: ·· The long possession of the appellants therefore· ·does ·'not 'es top the respondents . from recovering .. possession 'from them. ·. The ·.suit was instituted wi!hin. 12 years of the redemption of the mortgage . ~deed and is not therefore t.:i:rred by limitation. .

' '. : ' ' ' ' .... ··.The only· other· •question.· to determine., is . whether the plaintiffs-respondents . cannot recover ·possession from' the apptl!lant's in view of the provi· sions of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 (Act · ·xxx of 1950), hereinafter called the. Act,· which :came into force during 'the pendency ;. of the appeal · ··in the High Court •• The trial Court. dismis8ed the · ·suit on March 8, 1948. The High Court allowed the appeal on January 28, 19J8. The Act came into. '.force on September 25, 1950. •· · ·

., 'J ' .'; .

. · · · Sub-section (1) ofs. 3 oithe Act empowered · the State Government to declare by notification that ,. the estat~s. or t~nures of . . p~oprietoi; or tenure . holder specified m the notification have passed to · · ·and become vested in the State.· Such vesting took place on January 1, 1955. · It is. ·contended for the· · .appellants that the respondents ceased to have any proprietary right in the land. in suit when. their . estate vested in the State and therefore they had no · right to recover possession from them. ·

Section 4 of the.Act mentions the consequen-ces which follow on the publication of the . notifica-tion under sub-s. (I) .. of s. 3. According to 'e. 4(a), such estate or tenure including the interests of the •. proprietor or tenur~holder in the various . objects mentioned therein shall, with effect from the date· of vesting, vest absolutely in the State free frc~

. ·-·..,, ---,

all encumbrances, and such proprietor or tenure. holder ah11.ll cease to have any inter0st in snch estate or tenure other than the interest expressly saved by or under the provisions of the Act. Thi• makes it absolutely clear that after the vesting of the estate, no interest other than that expressly saved by or under the provisions of the Act remained in the respondents. The right to recover possession from the trespasser also got vested in the State. Sub-clause (f) of s. 4 provides that the Collector shall take charge of such estate or tenure and of all interests vesteil in the State under the section.

In this connection reference may be made to the decision of this Court in Haji Sk. Subhan. v. Madhorao ([1]) which dealt with similar question in the context of the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Abolition of Proprietary Rights (E3tates, Mahala, Alienated Lands) Act, 1950 (M.P. Act No. l of 1951).

We have now to consider whether any interest in the land in suit was expressly saved by or under the provision of the Act in favour of the res pon-dents.

Section 6 of the Act provides inter-alia that

on and from the date of vesting, all lands used for agricultural purposes which were in khas possession of proprietor or tenure-holder on the date of vesting shall be deemed to be settled by the State with such proprietor or tenure-holder as the case may be and such proprietor or tenure-holder shall be entitled to retain possession thereof and hold them as raiyat under the State having occupancy rights in respect of such lands subject to the pay-ment of such fair and equitable rent as may be determined by the Collector.· The lands coming within this section included lands used for agricul-tural purposes forming the subject matter of subsisting mortgage on the redemption of which the (1) {1962] Supp. 1 S.C.R. 123.

Surajnatli Ah ir v. Prithinath Singh Raghubar Da1al J.

.Su,.ajnalh Ahir •• Prithin1th-Sinzh

SUP HEME COURT REPORTS (1963)

intermediary is entitled to recover lchas possession. thereof. It follows that such lands, though not in the actual lchas posses"ion of the proprietor on the date of vestin~ would also be deemed to be settled with the proprietor, who would retain their posses-sion 11s raipat under the State.

According to s. 2(k) of the Act,

... 'khas possession' used with reference to the possession of proprietor or tenure-holder of any land used for agricultural or horticul-tural purpo~es means the possession of such proprietor or tenure-holder hy cultivating such land or carrying on horticultuml operations thereon himself with his own stock or by his own servants or by hired labour or with hired stock." ·

On the date of vesting, the respondents were not in

!chas possession of the land in suit as they were not in possession in any of the manner mentioned in this definition.

Section 6 does not really en large the scope of

the expression 'Kb.as possession but includes lands covered by els. (a), (b) and (e) of sub-s, (1) among the lands which can be deemed to be settled by the State with the proprietor. Clause (c) originally was:

"lands used for agricultural or horti· cultural purposes and in the possession of mortgagee which immediately before the execution of the mortgage bond were in kb.as possession of such proprietor or tenure holder."

This clause was substituted by another clause by

s. 6 of the Bihar land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1959 (Act XVI of 1959) and under that section the substituted clause shall be deemed always to have

3 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS

been substituted, that is t.o say, is to be deemed to have been in the original Act from the- very begin-ning. The substituted cl. (c:) reads :

1962 Su•ajnath Ahir v. Pri lhina!h ~in;:~ --l!at!.ubar Dayal J

"(c) lands used for agricultural or horti-

cultural purposes forming the subject matter of subsisting mortgairn on the redemption of which the intermedfory is entitled to recover khas possession thereof.",

It is therefore necessary for the respondents, to get advantage oft.he provisions of this clause, that there be subsisting mortgage on the date of vesting and that the land :included in the subsi8ting mortgage be such that on the redemption of thP. mortgage the respondents be entitled to recover khas possession thereof. No mortgage subsisted on the date of vesting and therefore the benefit of this clause cannot be taken by the 1 espondent.s. The land in suit does nol; come within 1 he pro-visions of cl. (c) or any other clause of sub·s. (1) of s, 6 of the Act. This point was raised in the High Court which observed as follows m this connection :

"In the first place the defendants were in pOSS''ssion as mortgagees and, even sec-tion 6 of the Bihar land Reforms Act pro-vides that th11 pos11ession of the mortgagee is the possession of the mortgagor even for the purpose of construing the meaning of Khas possession of the intermediary over the land which mav be deemed to be settled with him by virtu(1 of section 6 of the Act. The defendants' possession being the mort-gagees' possession, the case is covered by the terms of section 6 itself. Apart from it, it has been held in the case of Brij Nandan SinJh v. JamunaPra8ad Sahu and Another (First

SuroJ··a·h Ahi, •• P1ithin1Jth Singh Raghubar Dayal J.

Appeal No. 20.3 of 1948) by Division Bench of this Court that the words •Khas possession include subsisting title to possession as well and any proprietor, whose right to get khas possession of the land is not barred by any provision of law, will have right to recover possession and the State of Bihar shall treat him as Raiyat with occupancy right and not . the trespassers. The contention of the learned Advocate General must fail in terms of the above decision."

On the date of vPsting, the appellants were not in pos~ession as mortgagees. The mortagages had baen redeemed in 1943. Thereafter, the possession of the appellants was not as mortgagees. It may be as trespassers or in any other capacity. The land in suit, therefora, did not come within cl. ( c) of s. 6 of the Act as it stood when the High Court delivered the juclgmrnt. · Reliance was placed by the High Court on the case reported as Brijnandan Singh v. J amuna Prasad ( l) for the construction put <m the expression 'khas possession' to include subsisting title to possession as well, and therefore for holding that any proprietor, whose right to get khas possession of the land is not barred by 11.ny provision of law, will have right to recover pos~ession and that the St•te of Bihar shall treat him as raiyat with occupancy right and not as trespasser. We do not agree with this view when the definition of 'khas ·possession' meam the possession of 11. proprietor or tenure-holder either by cultivating such land himself with his own stock or by his own servants or by hired labour or with hired stock. 'l'he mere fact that proprietor has sub-sisting title to possession over· certain land on the date.of vesting would not make that land under his 'khas possession'.

(1) A.IR. 1958 Pat. 589.

3 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS

It is clear therefore that the land in suit cannot de deemed to be settled with the respon-dents by the State in accordance with the provi~ions of s. 6 of the Act. In the absence of any such settlement, no rights over the land in suit remain0d in the respondents after the date of vesting, all their rights having vested in the State by virtue of sU:b. s. ( 1) of s. 3 of the Act.

We are therefore of opinion that the respon-dents lost their right to recover possession from the appellants, -even if they were trespassers, on their estate vesting in th'-l Stafo, by virtue of ss. 3 and 4 of the Act and that therefore, thereafter, they had no subsisting right to recover pc;s•ession from the appellants. The right to possession now vests in the State. The respondents being no more entitled to recover possession of the land in suit the decree of the High Court has to be set asi<le. We, accor-dingly, aliow the appeal, set aside the 'Cree of the Court below and restore the decree of the trial Court, though for reasons other than those given by that Court in its judgment. In the circumstan-ces of the case, we order the parties to bea.-r their own costs.

Appeal allowe,d.

JJ68 Surajnath Ahir v. Prithinalh Singh Raghnbat Dayal J.