9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Nature of the lease and rights of the appellants. 2. Limitation and adverse possession. Detailed Analysis: 1. Nature of the Lease and Rights of the Appellants: The appellants claimed that the village Timmapet was included in a bilmakta sanad granted by the Nizam, entitling them to permanent possession subject only to the payment of pan makta. The respondent contended that the village was granted to his ancestor by the Nizam and the appellants were merely lessees under a lease granted in 1817 by the respondent's ancestor. The courts examined the kowl of 1817, which granted the village on lease for a fixed sum annually but did not specify its duration. The appellants argued that their uninterrupted possession for over 100 years indicated a permanent lease. However, the courts held that the kowl's plain terms did not confer a permanent lease. The appellants also relied on a vajab-ul-arz made soon after 1817, requesting a bilmakta sanad for certain lands, including Timmapet. The sanad granted in 1880 by the Nizam excluded Timmapet, Korotkal, and Palmur from the bilmakta grant, indicating they were not part of the sanad. The courts concluded that the village of Timmapet was not included in the bilmakta sanad and the appellants' rights depended solely on the 1817 kowl, which did not confer a permanent lease. The appellants' claim based on the sanads granted by the Nizam failed. 2. Limitation and Adverse Possession: The appellants argued that they had perfected their title by adverse possession, asserting a permanent lease since 1875. In 1875, the ancestor of the respondent sought possession of the village, but the Prime Minister ordered that the appellants' ancestor, who had been in long possession, should not be dispossessed. The appellants contended that this established adverse possession of a limited interest. The courts recognized that adverse possession of a limited interest is possible. However, the nature of jagirdari tenure in Hyderabad, which was typically for life and required fresh sanads for successors, meant that limitation against a grantee started from the date his title arose. The respondent succeeded to the jagir in 1910, and the suit was filed in 1920, within the limitation period. The courts held that the appellants could not claim adverse possession against the respondent, as the limitation would start from 1910, the date when the respondent's title accrued. The appellants' claim of adverse possession for a limited interest failed. Conclusion: The appeal was dismissed, affirming the respondent's entitlement to possession of the village and rejecting the appellants' claims based on a bilmakta sanad and adverse possession. The judgment upheld the respondent's rights and clarified the nature of jagirdari tenure and the application of limitation laws in such cases.
|
