1969 (3) TMI 88 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of Article 142 or Article 144 of the Limitation Act when a plaintiff fails to prove tenancy.
2. Determination of burden of proof in cases involving possession and adverse possession.
3. Interpretation of dispossession and discontinuance of possession under Article 142.
4. Examination of previous case law and judicial precedents related to Articles 142 and 144.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Applicability of Article 142 or Article 144 of the Limitation Act:
The primary issue is whether Article 142 or Article 144 of the Limitation Act applies when a plaintiff claims possession against a defendant alleging tenancy but fails to prove the tenancy. Article 142 applies to suits "for possession of immoveable property when the plaintiff while in possession of the property has been dispossessed or has discontinued the possession," with a limitation period of twelve years from the date of dispossession or discontinuance. Article 144 is the residuary Article, applying to "suits for possession of immoveable property or any interest therein not otherwise specially provided for in the Limitation Act," with a limitation period of twelve years from when the defendant's possession becomes adverse to the plaintiff.

The court concluded that if a plaintiff fails to prove the tenancy, Article 142 will not apply, and the applicable Article will be Article 144. This is because Article 144 covers cases not specifically provided for by other Articles, including Article 142, which is specific to cases of dispossession or discontinuance of possession.

2. Determination of Burden of Proof:
The court emphasized that the burden of proof shifts depending on the applicable Article. Under Article 142, the burden is on the plaintiff to show that the date of dispossession or discontinuance of possession was within twelve years of the suit. Conversely, under Article 144, the plaintiff must prove title, and the burden then shifts to the defendant to establish adverse possession for more than twelve years.

The trial court and lower appellate court found that the plaintiff failed to prove tenancy or possession within twelve years of the suit. However, no clear finding was recorded regarding the defendant's adverse possession. The court noted that the plaintiff's failure to prove tenancy does not automatically disprove the plaintiff's title, and thus Article 144 should apply, requiring the defendant to prove adverse possession.

3. Interpretation of Dispossession and Discontinuance of Possession:
The court clarified the terms "dispossession" and "discontinuance of possession" under Article 142. Dispossession involves an ouster or driving out of possession against the will of the person in actual possession, while discontinuance implies a voluntary act of abandonment followed by another's possession. The court noted that mere failure to prove tenancy does not equate to dispossession or discontinuance.

The court highlighted that even if the plaintiff voluntarily handed over possession, it cannot be assumed that the plaintiff was dispossessed or discontinued possession. The court also referenced the Supreme Court's position in Gurbinder Singh v. Lal Singh, emphasizing that wrongful possession cannot be assumed against the true owner if the transfer of possession was voluntary.

4. Examination of Previous Case Law and Judicial Precedents:
The court reviewed several previous cases to support its conclusions. In Abdul Ghani v. Mst. Babni, it was held that a plaintiff could succeed on title even if tenancy was not proved. Similarly, in Balmakund v. Dalu, the plaintiff's failure to prove tenancy did not preclude a decree based on title. The court also referenced the Full Bench decision in Bindhyachal Chand v. Ram Gharib Chand, which supported the view that Article 144 applies when the plaintiff's allegations of tenancy are not proved.

The court distinguished the present case from earlier cases like Sangam Lal v. Ganga Din, where Article 142 was applied due to specific findings of dispossession. The court noted that the consistent view before Sangam Lal was that Article 144 applies in cases where tenancy is not proved, and the plaintiff relies on title.

Conclusion:
The Full Bench concluded that if a plaintiff claims possession against a defendant alleging tenancy and fails to prove the tenancy, Article 142 of the Limitation Act will not apply. The only applicable Article in such cases is Article 144. The court emphasized the importance of determining the correct Article based on the facts and allegations in the plaint, and the burden of proof shifts accordingly. The court's answer to the referred question was that Article 144 applies when tenancy is not proved, and the plaintiff's suit should be decided based on title and adverse possession considerations.