1941 (10) TMI 4 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Ownership of the suit property.
2. Validity and sufficiency of the notice under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code.
3. Applicability of Section 11 of the Revenue Jurisdiction Act.
4. Applicability of Articles 14 and 120 of the Indian Limitation Act.
5. Proof of title by adverse possession.
6. Nature and validity of the alleged lease.
7. Right to compel the Government to renew the lease or sell occupancy rights.
8. Court-fees and necessary parties.
9. Alternative relief for reasonable rent after lease expiry.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Ownership of the Suit Property:
The plaintiffs claimed absolute ownership of the land based on long possession and adverse possession. The Government contended that the land was leased for ninety-nine years, which expired in March 1930. The court found that the plaintiffs failed to prove their title, as they did not provide evidence of acquisition by grant or purchase. The court also noted that the plaintiffs' possession was not sufficient to establish ownership under Section 110 of the Indian Evidence Act.

2. Validity and Sufficiency of the Notice under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code:
The court held that the notice given by the plaintiffs under Section 80 was proper and sufficient. It stated that the notice substantially complied with the provisions of the section, as it provided the names and places of residence of the plaintiffs, which was deemed adequate for identification.

3. Applicability of Section 11 of the Revenue Jurisdiction Act:
The court determined that the notice given by the Government to the plaintiffs was a decision or order under Section 202 of the Land Revenue Code, and therefore, the plaintiffs were required to appeal against it under Section 203 of the Land Revenue Code. The failure to appeal rendered the suit barred under Section 11 of the Revenue Jurisdiction Act.

4. Applicability of Articles 14 and 120 of the Indian Limitation Act:
The court did not find the suit barred under Articles 14 and 120, as the suit was not considered to be filed beyond the limitation period. The court focused on the applicability of Section 11 of the Revenue Jurisdiction Act as the primary reason for barring the suit.

5. Proof of Title by Adverse Possession:
The court found that the plaintiffs did not acquire title by adverse possession. The earliest document indicating possession was from 1870, but it did not establish ownership. The plaintiffs' possession was not deemed adverse for the required period of sixty years before the suit. The court noted that the plaintiffs did not file cross-objections to claim adverse possession.

6. Nature and Validity of the Alleged Lease:
The court held that the Government satisfactorily proved that the land was leased for ninety-nine years, expiring in March 1930. The evidence included documents such as exhibits 123, 144, 134, and 135, along with witness testimonies. The court rejected the plaintiffs' claim of permanent ownership based on long possession and the erection of superstructures.

7. Right to Compel the Government to Renew the Lease or Sell Occupancy Rights:
The court did not find any basis for the plaintiffs to compel the Government to renew the lease or sell occupancy rights. The alternative relief sought by the plaintiffs was not supported by the terms of the sanad granted in 1930, which only confirmed possession up to March 31, 1930, without conferring further rights.

8. Court-fees and Necessary Parties:
The court held that no additional court-fees were necessary for the alternative relief. Defendant No. 2, being a member of the plaintiffs' family, was deemed a necessary party, and the plaintiffs were entitled to the reliefs awarded in the order.

9. Alternative Relief for Reasonable Rent after Lease Expiry:
The court rejected the alternative relief sought by the plaintiffs for remaining in possession on payment of reasonable rent. The court found that the plaintiffs did not have any right to remain on the land after the lease expired, as the Government had the right to resume possession.

Conclusion:
The appeal was allowed, the decree of the lower court was set aside, and the plaintiffs' suit was dismissed with costs. The court confirmed the order allowing the amendment of the plaint's valuation, stating that it did not change the nature of the suit.