1927 (3) TMI 4 - Other - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity and binding nature of the sale.
2. Entitlement to compensation money for land and trees.
3. Ownership and entitlement to compensation for the building on the land.
4. Apportionment of compensation money awarded for the building.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity and Binding Nature of the Sale:
The plaintiff purchased the holding at a revenue sale for arrears of Government Revenue. The defendants contested the validity of this sale, but the learned Subordinate Judge found against the defendants on this issue. This finding was not disputed in the High Court or on the appeal to the Privy Council. Therefore, the sale was deemed valid and binding.

2. Entitlement to Compensation Money for Land and Trees:
Assuming the sale to be valid, it was undisputed that the plaintiff was entitled to the compensation money awarded in respect of the land and trees. The total amount awarded for land and trees was Rs. 2,181.

3. Ownership and Entitlement to Compensation for the Building on the Land:
The primary contention was whether the plaintiff acquired title to the building on the land by his purchase at the revenue auction sale. The High Court held that the ownership of the building did not pass to the plaintiff and remained with the defendants. This decision was based on the interpretation of Act XI of 1859, which was primarily concerned with the sale of land for arrears of revenue. The Privy Council upheld this view, noting that the sale under the Act was limited to the land and did not include buildings unless explicitly stated by special words in the legislation. Therefore, the plaintiff did not acquire title to the building through the revenue sale.

4. Apportionment of Compensation Money Awarded for the Building:
The High Court awarded the defendants the entire compensation for the building, less Rs. 2,300, which was awarded to the plaintiff as compensation for the period from 1st May 1919 to 11th March 1921. The Privy Council, however, did not agree with the basis of this apportionment. They suggested considering what the respective rights and positions of the parties would have been if no acquisition had taken place under the Land Acquisition Act. The plaintiff, as the owner of the land, could have asked the defendants to remove the building, which would have had limited value upon removal. Alternatively, the plaintiff might have been willing to pay more for the building than its demolition value. The Privy Council remanded the case to the learned Subordinate Judge to decide the portion of the Rs. 12,388 compensation money awarded for the building that the defendants were entitled to, considering these factors.

Conclusion and Costs:
The Privy Council advised that the appeal should be allowed, and the case remanded to the Subordinate Judge. The decree of the High Court was to be varied, declaring that the plaintiff was entitled to Rs. 2,181 for the land and trees, and a further sum as determined by the Subordinate Judge for the building. The plaintiff was to refund the defendants the amount due to them for the building. The plaintiff was awarded costs for the trial in the Subordinate Judge's Court, while both parties were to bear their own costs for the appeals to the High Court and the Privy Council. The costs of the hearing on remand were left to the discretion of the Subordinate Judge.