1963 (2) TMI 70 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Whether a person who has built a house on another's land but is not in possession can be granted a decree for possession.
2. Determination of title and possession of the disputed land and house.
3. Validity of the lease claimed by the plaintiffs.
4. Application of the maxim "quicquid plantatur solo, solo cedit" in Indian law.
5. Rights of a person who builds on another's land without authorization.
6. The adequacy and correctness of the Commissioner's report and plan.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Whether a person who has built a house on another's land but is not in possession can be granted a decree for possession:
The court held that a person who has built a house on another's land cannot be granted a decree for possession if they are not in possession of the land. The judgment emphasized that in India, a building can be owned separately from the land, but this does not mean that one can build on another's land and claim ownership or possession of the building.

2. Determination of title and possession of the disputed land and house:
The property in question is a piece of land, 33 cents in extent, with a house on it, forming part of Survey No. 1814/A of Randamada Village. The plaintiffs claimed ownership based on a family partition under Ext. P-3 dated 8-10-1105 M.E. (21-3-1930 A.D.). The defendant contested, claiming the house was on land allotted to another family member, Raghvan Pillai, from whom he bought the land and built the house. The lower appellate court's decision was based on the Commissioner's report, which showed the house was not on the plaintiffs' land.

3. Validity of the lease claimed by the plaintiffs:
The trial court found the lease set up by the plaintiffs to be false, a finding with which the lower appellate court agreed. Despite this, the lower appellate court concluded that the house belonged to the plaintiffs, which the High Court found inconsistent and unsupported by the evidence.

4. Application of the maxim "quicquid plantatur solo, solo cedit" in Indian law:
The court clarified that the maxim does not have absolute application in India. While in England, anything built on land becomes part of the soil and belongs to the landowner, in India, buildings can be owned separately from the land. However, this does not entitle a person to build on another's land without authorization and claim ownership of the building.

5. Rights of a person who builds on another's land without authorization:
The court stated that a person who builds on another's land without authorization does not become the owner of the building. Their rights are limited to either removing the materials of the building or receiving compensation for them if evicted. The court emphasized that a trespasser cannot claim possession of the building.

6. The adequacy and correctness of the Commissioner's report and plan:
The initial Commissioner's report was found to be useless, but the appellate court's Commissioner's report (Ext. C-2) was accepted. This report showed that the house was not on the plaintiffs' land, and the plaintiffs failed to substantiate any errors in the report. The court accepted the Commissioner's findings and held that the plaintiffs had title to the plot marked 10 in Ext. C-2 but not to the house.

Conclusion:
The High Court decreed that the plaintiffs have title to the plot marked 10 in Ext. C-2 and can recover possession of the portion of this plot in the defendants' possession. However, the plaintiffs' suit was dismissed concerning the house. The plaintiffs were ordered to pay the defendants' costs incurred in all three courts.