MUSAMMAT MURTI DUSSADHIN AND OTHERS v. SURAJDEO SINGH AND OTHERS
Citation: [1965] 1 S.C.R. 20; 1964 INSC 166
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: K. SUBBA RAO , S.M. SIKRI
Judgment date:
Case summary
1964 INSC 166. Supreme Court of India judgment dated 1964-08-11. MUSAMMAT MURTI DUSSADHIN AND OTHERS v. SURAJDEO SINGH AND OTHERS. Read the judgment and...
Judgment text
22 SUPREME COURT REPORTS {I 965) I S. CR. MUSAMMAT MURTI DUSSADHIN AND OTHERS A v. .. SURAJDEO SINGH AND OTHERS August 11, 1964 (K. SUBBA RAo AND s. M. S1KR1 JJ. ) B Indian Limitation Act, 1908 (9 of 1908), Arts. 142, 144-Sull for Ejectment-PlaintiO's title admined but pos,. ssion as tenant claimed- Whether Art. 142 or Art. 144 applies. One M brought a suit in the Munsif's C'. <>Wt against a number of ,. persons, including the appellants for a declamtion that certain land constituted the bakslrat interest of the plaintiff, who had been and continued to be in possession and occupation thereof. In the alternative be prayed c for possession if the plaintiff ht\ deemed to have been dispossessed for a proceedings under s. 144 of the Code of Crirninal Procedure had cast a doubt on his title. This sμit followed the proceedings under s. 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which resulted in a decision agalns\ the plaintiff.
The defendants did not deny the title of the plaintiff but asserted that the plaintiff gave- these lands to the defendants to cultivate them on balai over more than 2S years ago, and since then the defendants had been and were in peaceful cultivating po'. ;session over the same and D had also acquired occupancy right• in them. The Munsif dismissed the suit upholding the pleas of defendants. The plaintiff appealed and suc-ceded before the Appellate Court, which was of the view that the onus \ was on the defendants to prove that they were raiyats of the land and ' that they bad occupancy rights in these lands and that the defendants bad "\ not been able to prove their case about settlement and possession. The High Court, on appeal by the defendants, held that having regard to E the facts and circumstances of this particular case, the burden waa on the defendants to show whether they have been in possession for 12 :r~ <>r more, and dismis.. 00 the appeal.
On appeal by· special lcav~, HELD : On the facts of the case Art. 144 and not Art. 142 applied. If a defendant not only admits title of the plaintiff but also admits-t hat he derived possession from the plaintiff as a tenant, the case must proceed on the defendant's plea, and for the purpose of deciding whet- F her Art. 142 or Art. 144 applied, it must be assumed that the plaln1ilf ha.. -. not been dispossessed or has not discontinued his possession within the meaning of Art. 142, for neither the plaintiff nor the defendant alleges di! 'JKl&scssion or discontinuation of possession. 124F....... F] JaJdhari v. Rajmdra Singh, A. LR. 1958 Pat. 386. approved. The Official Receh•er of Eust Godavari v. (_'hava Goi•inda Raju, I. L. R. 11~40] Mad. 9. 13 and Relrnri I. al v. S11mlar Das. I. LR. (1935) 16 Lah. 442. Jistingui~hcd. G Kumhharn U1kxhmanna v. Tant:ir 1·. I. t. ATE JuRt~llt\TION : Civil Appeal No. 625 of 196() AppeHI hy '! 'Cci;il l:;ivc from the judgment and decree dale Lordships.
in Nainapil/ai Marakayar v. Romanathan Chet-tiar,(') laid down the principle that the burden will be on him to prove that he has such rights. " ,,.. Is the position the same when the plaintiff docs not admit any tenancy but the defendant alleges tenancy but of a pennanent nature ? It seems to us that if a defendant not only admits title of the plaintiff ~ut also ~dmits that he derived posse"ion from the pl. 'lintiff as a tenant, the case mu~t proceed on the defendant's plea, and for the purpose of drcirling whether Art. 142 or Art. 144 applied, it must be a~sumed thnt the plaintiff has not been dispossessed or has not disc(•ntinued his possession within the meaning of Art. 142, for neither the plaintiff nor the defendant alleges di. ~ possession or discontinuation of possession. Construing the plaint as a whole, it is clear that the plaintiff never alleged di~·pussession or being out of posscs. sion. He asserted ownership of the suit land and claimed that he was in possessioo. (.
; Section 144 Cr. P. C. proceedings seemed to have cast a doubt on his title and he accordingly brought a suit for a declaration. It is tme that in the alternative he prayed for a dxrce for possession and mesne profits. He was careful even in this alternative prayer to say that he could only be deemed to he dispossessed by s. 144 proceedings. The Sts iii this Court. · In view of our decision on the question of limitation, it is not necessary to deal with the point of abatement of the appeal raised by the learned counsel for the respondents. The appellants will pay court fees, which would have been paid by them if they have not been permitted to appeal as paupers. Appeal dismissed and decree modified.
Source: Supreme Court eSCR. Dataset: Dattam Labs, CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.