1972 (7) TMI 117 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Ownership and possession of the suit land.
2. Possession of the suit land by the Municipal Corporation for over twelve years.
3. Entitlement to sue without issuing notice under Section 447 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act.
4. Relief entitled to the plaintiff.
5. Competence and effect of judgments referred to in the plaint.
6. Binding nature and admissibility of documents filed by the plaintiff.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Ownership and Possession of the Suit Land:
The plaintiff claimed ownership of the disputed property, known as "Maidan Bazaar Jamerath," based on a sale deed executed in 1889 in favor of his father, Dhan Singh. The trial court found the boundaries in the sale deed too old to establish a clear connection to the Bazaar. The High Court noted that the plaintiff's evidence was insufficient to prove ownership, particularly since the plan and mortgage mentioned in the sale deed were not produced. The trial court, however, relied on several documents and the Sarfe-Khas Department's judgments, which acknowledged the plaintiff's title and possession. The High Court criticized the trial court for not properly appreciating the evidence, particularly the Firman issued by the Nizam, which allegedly extinguished all existing rights in the land and vested it in the Municipal Corporation.

2. Possession of the Suit Land by the Municipal Corporation for Over Twelve Years:
The defendant claimed uninterrupted possession of the suit land for over twelve years, asserting ownership and possession by the Municipal Corporation. The trial court rejected this claim, finding that compensation had not been paid for the entire land purchased by Dhan Singh. The High Court, however, accepted the Corporation's contention that the entire area, including the Bazaar, had been handed over to the Municipality as per the Firman and the proceedings of the City Improvement Board.

3. Entitlement to Sue Without Issuing Notice Under Section 447 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act:
The High Court held that the suit was barred under Section 447 of the Corporation Act due to the lack of notice. The plaintiff argued that the acts complained of were not done under the Corporation Act. The Supreme Court agreed with the plaintiff, stating that the dispute was about ownership and possession, not any act done under the Act. Therefore, no notice was necessary before instituting the suit.

4. Relief Entitled to the Plaintiff:
The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff, granting a permanent injunction. The High Court reversed this decision, dismissing the suit based on the three main contentions raised by the defendant. The Supreme Court remanded the case to the trial court to decide the matter afresh on issues relating to title and possession, allowing both parties to amend pleadings and adduce fresh evidence.

5. Competence and Effect of Judgments Referred to in the Plaint:
The trial court found the judgments of the Sarfe-Khas Department, which acknowledged the plaintiff's title and possession, to be competent and binding. The High Court, however, held that these judgments were not binding on the Municipal Corporation, as it was not a party to those proceedings. The Supreme Court did not express a final opinion on this matter, remanding the case for further investigation and decision.

6. Binding Nature and Admissibility of Documents Filed by the Plaintiff:
The trial court admitted and relied on various documents filed by the plaintiff, including agreements between Sarfe-Khas and the Corporation. The High Court found that the trial court had not properly appreciated these documents' evidentiary value. The Supreme Court directed the trial court to reconsider these documents' relevance and admissibility during the fresh trial.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, remanding the case to the trial court for a fresh decision on issues of title and possession, with directions to allow amendments in pleadings and the introduction of fresh evidence. The legal points regarding the necessity of notice under Section 447 of the Corporation Act and the legal effect of the Firman were decided in favor of the plaintiff. Both parties were encouraged to produce all relevant documents to facilitate a satisfactory resolution of the dispute. There was no order as to costs.