1968 (2) TMI 117 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Possession of land L(1) for over 70 years and improvements made by the plaintiff.
2. Entitlement of the first defendant to possession of any area in excess of the first Kuthakapattom lease.
3. Timing of the alleged trespass or eviction of the plaintiff.
4. Plaintiff's right to bring a suit for ejectment without proof of title.
5. Entitlement to mesne profits and compensation for waste.
6. Validity of the second Kuthakapattom lease and its implications.
7. Amendment of the written statement to include the second Kuthakapattom lease.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Possession of Land L(1) for Over 70 Years and Improvements:
The plaintiff claimed possession of the suit lands for over 70 years and had improved them. The trial judge found the plaintiff's possession dated back only to 1920-21. The High Court, however, found that the plaintiff was in possession from at least 1924-25, establishing his claim to the land.

2. Entitlement of the First Defendant to Possession of Any Area in Excess of the First Kuthakapattom Lease:
The first defendant, the Society, was granted a Kuthakapattom lease for 165 acres in 1938. The plaintiff alleged that the Society trespassed on an additional 131.23 acres. The trial judge dismissed the suit against the Society but decreed it against other defendants for L(1)(a). The High Court reversed this, holding that the Society was in possession of the entire suit land, not just the 160 acres initially leased.

3. Timing of the Alleged Trespass or Eviction:
The plaintiff claimed dispossession on October 16, 1939, while the Society argued it occurred on July 24, 1939, when the government evicted the plaintiff from 160 acres. The High Court found that the plaintiff was dispossessed in October 1939, rejecting the Society's claim of earlier eviction.

4. Plaintiff's Right to Bring a Suit for Ejectment Without Proof of Title:
The High Court held that the plaintiff could maintain a suit for possession based on prior possession without proof of title. The Society's contention that a suit in ejectment requires proof of title was rejected. The court affirmed that possession alone could form the basis of a suit for ejectment, provided it was within the statutory period.

5. Entitlement to Mesne Profits and Compensation for Waste:
The trial judge awarded mesne profits and compensation for waste against defendants 3 to 6 for L(1)(a). The High Court extended this to the entire suit land against the Society. The rate of mesne profits was determined, and the High Court held the Society liable for mesne profits and compensation for waste.

6. Validity of the Second Kuthakapattom Lease and Its Implications:
The Society obtained a second Kuthakapattom lease for additional land during the pendency of the suit. The High Court rejected the Society's late attempt to amend its written statement to include this lease. The Supreme Court, however, allowed the amendment, noting that it would enable the court to do complete justice by considering the new lease.

7. Amendment of the Written Statement to Include the Second Kuthakapattom Lease:
The High Court rejected the Society's application for amendment on the last day of hearing. The Supreme Court allowed the amendment, emphasizing that it would avoid prolonged litigation and enable the court to consider the Society's title under the second lease. The amendment was permitted, and the case was remanded for further trial on this issue.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal regarding L(1)(a) but allowed the amendment for L(1)(b), remanding the case for further trial. The Society was ordered to pay costs incurred by the plaintiff in the High Court and trial court, with each party bearing its own costs in the Supreme Court. The rate of mesne profits as determined would apply, and the question of improvements would be reconsidered in light of the findings on the second Kuthakapattom lease.