1915 (12) TMI 1 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of lease to the 3rd defendant on plot B.
2. Rights of the 3rd defendant under the lease.
3. Possession of the plaintiff at the date of the suit.

Analysis:
1. The High Court of Madras agreed with the lower courts that the entire plot A was sold to the plaintiff, dismissing the second appeal concerning that plot. However, regarding plot B, the District Judge did not reach a definitive conclusion. It was noted that if the 3rd defendant held a lease to plant casuarina trees on the land before its sale to the plaintiff, his rights needed protection. The District Judge was directed to determine the validity and terms of the lease to the 3rd defendant at the time of the sale.

2. In compliance with the High Court's order, the District Judge submitted a finding that there was an oral lease to the 3rd defendant at the time of the sale, involving the planting of casuarina trees with specific terms. However, the lease was deemed invalid due to the lack of a registered instrument. The High Court accepted this finding, emphasizing that the lease for planting casuarina trees did not fall under agricultural purposes, as per established legal precedents.

3. Another issue raised was the possession of the plaintiff at the date of the suit. The District Munsif initially found the 3rd defendant in possession, but the evidence was not thoroughly considered by the District Judge. A fresh finding was requested to determine whether the plaintiff was in possession at the time of the suit, with a directive for the District Judge to reevaluate the evidence and submit a new finding within a specified timeline.

4. The final decision of the High Court was based on the findings submitted by the District Judge. It was concluded that the plaintiff was not in possession at the date of the suit, leading to the appeal being allowed concerning plot B. The High Court reversed the District Judge's decree and reinstated the District Munsif's decision, emphasizing that the plaintiff, lacking possession at the time of the suit, was not entitled to seek a mere declaration without possession. Costs were awarded to the plaintiff in both the current and lower appellate courts.