1916 (7) TMI 1 - Other - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Entitlement of the appellant to constitute the lands into a reserved forest under the Madras Forest Act.
2. Legal right to possession and property in the disputed lands.
3. Applicability of the Indian Limitation Act regarding adverse possession against the Crown.
4. Onus of proof in establishing title by possession.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Entitlement of the appellant to constitute the lands into a reserved forest under the Madras Forest Act:

The appellant, His Majesty's Secretary of State for India, sought to incorporate certain parcels of land into a reserved forest under the Madras Forest Act (V of 1882). The respondents, two zamindars, objected, claiming the lands based on possession from time immemorial. The High Court of Madras had reversed the decisions of the Forest Settlement Officer and the District Court, which had dismissed the zamindars' claims.

2. Legal right to possession and property in the disputed lands:

The physical facts were undisputed: the lands were islands formed in the bed of the sea near the mouth or delta of the Godavari river, within three miles of the mainland, and mostly jungle lands. The Crown claimed these lands as Crown property, invoking the principle from Hale's "De Jure Maris," which states that islands arising de novo in the king's seas prima facie belong to the king. The Board affirmed that the islands, formed within the territorial limits of the Indian Empire, were Crown property.

3. Applicability of the Indian Limitation Act regarding adverse possession against the Crown:

Under the Indian Limitation Act, adverse possession against the Crown can only be pleaded effectively for a period of no less than sixty years. The respondents needed to establish such adverse possession to claim the lands. The Forest Settlement Officer and the District Court found no evidence of adverse and exclusive possession prior to 1883, and thus the possession proved did not last long enough to establish a right against the Government.

4. Onus of proof in establishing title by possession:

The High Court had erred in law by suggesting that the Crown needed to prove a subsisting title by showing that the possession of the claimants commenced or became adverse within the period of limitation. The Board reiterated that the onus of establishing title by possession lies upon the person asserting such possession. The respondents had to prove possession for the requisite period of sixty years. The Board found that the claimants failed to establish such possession, and thus their claim to the land failed.

Conclusion:

The Board concluded that the Crown's ownership of the islands formed in the sea within the territorial limits of the Indian Empire was affirmed. The respondents did not establish adverse possession for the requisite period of sixty years. The High Court's view that the Crown needed to prove a subsisting title was erroneous. The appeals were allowed, and the judgments of the District Court were restored. The respondents were ordered to pay the costs of the appeal and the Courts below.