1979 (7) TMI 255 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the alienation by a widow with a life estate.
2. Rights of a reversioner in challenging the alienation.
3. Legal implications of a mortgage by the reversioner and subsequent auction sale.
4. Status and rights of tenants-at-will.
5. Effect of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 on the rights of intermediaries and tenants.
6. Definition and implications of 'khas possession' under the Act.
7. Procedural requirements for eviction of tenants-at-will.
8. Admissibility of additional evidence under Order 41, Rule 27, CPC.
9. Procedural compliance for maintaining an appeal.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Alienation by a Widow with a Life Estate:
The widow, Mussamat Durga Kumari, sold the estate including Taluka Chakai to the Maharaja of Gidhaur. The reversioner, Tikait Chaudi Prasad, challenged this alienation on the grounds that it was made by a widow with a life estate and without legal necessity, thus not binding on the reversioner. The Privy Council ultimately ruled in favor of Tikait Chaudi Prasad, setting aside the alienation.

2. Rights of a Reversioner in Challenging the Alienation:
Tikait Chaudi Prasad, as the next reversioner, successfully challenged the alienation by filing Title Suit No. 86/1908, which culminated in a decree in his favor by the Privy Council. This affirmed the reversioner's right to challenge alienations made without legal necessity by a widow holding a life estate.

3. Legal Implications of a Mortgage by the Reversioner and Subsequent Auction Sale:
Tikait Chaudi Prasad mortgaged the estate to Mr. Chrestian to fund the litigation. After failing to discharge the mortgage, Mr. Chrestian obtained a decree for recovery and eventually purchased the estate at a court auction. This sale was confirmed, and Mr. Chrestian took possession through the court.

4. Status and Rights of Tenants-at-Will:
The High Court in the earlier litigation held that the defendants were tenants-at-will, who could not be evicted without proper notice terminating their tenancy. The court concluded that tenants-at-will have a vestige of title and hold possession on their own behalf, not on behalf of the landlord.

5. Effect of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 on the Rights of Intermediaries and Tenants:
The Act aimed to transfer the interests of proprietors and tenure-holders to the State. Section 6 of the Act allowed intermediaries to retain possession of lands in their 'khas' possession on the date of vesting. However, the court held that the plaintiff was not in 'khas' possession as the tenants-at-will were in actual possession on the date of vesting.

6. Definition and Implications of 'khas possession' under the Act:
'Khas possession' as defined in Section 2(k) of the Act means possession by cultivating the land oneself or through one's own stock, servants, or hired labor. The court held that the plaintiff was not in 'khas' possession as the tenants-at-will were in actual possession and could hold out against the landlord until the end of the agricultural year.

7. Procedural Requirements for Eviction of Tenants-at-Will:
The court reiterated that even tenants-at-will are entitled to notice terminating their tenancy, which must expire with the end of the agricultural year. The absence of such notice meant that the plaintiff could not evict the tenants-at-will.

8. Admissibility of Additional Evidence under Order 41, Rule 27, CPC:
The plaintiff's application to lead additional evidence to establish that the land was settled with him by the State was rejected. The court held that the validity of such a settlement could not be determined in the present suit and advised the plaintiff to seek relief in a separate proceeding.

9. Procedural Compliance for Maintaining an Appeal:
The plaintiff contended that the appeal should have been dismissed due to non-compliance with a High Court order. However, the court found no merit in this contention, noting that the High Court retained the power to extend the time for compliance, which it did.

Conclusion:
The appeal was dismissed with costs, affirming that the plaintiff was not in 'khas' possession on the date of vesting and thus could not maintain an action for eviction. The court also upheld the procedural requirements for eviction and the definition of 'khas possession' under the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950.