1960 (5) TMI 33 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Validity of the plaintiffs' title to the disputed land.
2. Whether the plaintiffs obtained possession through court on 5-4-1938.
3. Whether the suit was barred by limitation or adverse possession.
4. Whether the plaintiffs were entitled to possession without payment of the mortgage money.
5. Whether the appellants were entitled to reimbursement for the mortgage money paid.
6. Whether the plaintiffs' suit was barred by the principles of acquiescence.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the plaintiffs' title to the disputed land:
The plaintiffs acquired title to the disputed land by virtue of an auction purchase on 21-3-1934. The court held that the plaintiffs were entitled to the disputed land, and this title was not challenged. The principal defendants second party had no subsisting title to convey to the appellants, making the appellants mere trespassers with no valid title to the disputed land.

2. Whether the plaintiffs obtained possession through court on 5-4-1938:
The court found abundant evidence that the plaintiffs obtained actual physical possession of the disputed plot through court on 5-4-1938 and remained in possession until they were dispossessed by the appellants on 6-11-1945. This finding was crucial in determining that the suit was not barred by limitation.

3. Whether the suit was barred by limitation or adverse possession:
The suit was filed first in the Court of the Munsif at Barh on 8-1-1949, and later refiled in the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Patna on 10-4-1951. The court held that the plaintiffs acted in good faith in instituting the suit in the wrong court and were entitled to the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act. Consequently, the suit was deemed to have been filed on 8-1-1949, making it well within time from the date of dispossession.

4. Whether the plaintiffs were entitled to possession without payment of the mortgage money:
The court held that the appellants had no interest in the mortgaged property and could not claim subrogation rights by paying the mortgage money. The plaintiffs, having undoubted title, were entitled to possession without paying off the mortgage. The court cited several precedents to support this position, emphasizing that the appellants were mere volunteers with no equities in their favor.

5. Whether the appellants were entitled to reimbursement for the mortgage money paid:
The court rejected the appellants' claim for reimbursement, stating that their payment was voluntary and carried no right of reimbursement or subrogation. The appellants were under no legal obligation to pay the mortgage money, and their payment was considered officious.

6. Whether the plaintiffs' suit was barred by the principles of acquiescence:
The court dismissed the argument that the plaintiffs' suit was barred by acquiescence. It found no evidence that the plaintiffs encouraged the appellants' actions or abstained from asserting their rights. The appellants knowingly purchased the land from persons with no title and constructed buildings in assertion of rights they believed to be theirs, not in any mistaken belief.

Conclusion:
The appeal was dismissed with costs, affirming the plaintiffs' title and right to possession of the disputed land. The court found no merit in the appellants' defenses of limitation, adverse possession, reimbursement, or acquiescence.