9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Limitation of the award. 2. Adverse possession by the mortgagee. 3. Sale of the land by the Collector. 4. Award of mesne profits by the executing court. Summary: 1. Limitation of the Award: The appellants contended that the award is barred by limitation, citing a full bench judgment of the Gujarat High Court in Ramanbhai Trikamlal v. Vaghri Vaghabhai Oghabhai & Anr., which stated that execution for possession must be laid within 12 years. The respondents laid their applications after 22 years. The Supreme Court found no force in this contention, explaining that the Bombay Agricultural Debtors Relief Act, 1947 (the Act) is a complete code in itself and does not prescribe a period of limitation for execution. Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963, was discussed, and it was clarified that the Act does not prescribe any period of limitation for recovery of possession. Therefore, the application for possession is not barred by limitation. 2. Adverse Possession by the Mortgagee: The appellants claimed that they had perfected their title by adverse possession. The Supreme Court rejected this contention, stating that there was no evidence to show when the appellants asserted adverse title to the property to the knowledge of the respondents. The court emphasized that the doctrine of adverse possession requires hostile title to be asserted and proved, which was not done in this case. 3. Sale of the Land by the Collector: The appellants argued that they had purchased the hypotheca at an auction conducted by the Collector and thus became the owners. The Supreme Court found no force in this contention, noting that the best evidence, such as the notification to conduct the sale, sale proceedings, and the certificate of sale, was not placed on record. The court concluded that the appellants remained in possession as mortgagees and that the property remains subject to the charge until the debt is discharged. 4. Award of Mesne Profits by the Executing Court: The appellants contended that the executing court had no power to award mesne profits. The Supreme Court held that the civil court has the power and jurisdiction to award mesne profits as a concomitant of the order for delivery of possession. The court found that the appellants continued in possession after the discharge of the debt and enjoyed the property, with the income derived being Rs. 5,000 per year. Therefore, the appellants were liable to pay mesne profits from the date of discharge of the debt until the date of possession. Conclusion: The appeal was dismissed with costs quantified at Rs. 3,000, to be paid to the Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee within three months. In default, the civil court was directed to execute the decree for costs suo motu and make over the amount to the credit of the Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee.
|
