Case: Somnath Barman Vs. Dr. S. P. Raju &amp; Anr

arrears till 1939. The Nazul due under Exhts. P-2 and P-3 comes to Rs. 41/- and odd per year as seen from Exh. P-6.7. Exihibit P-5 is a letter dated 11-12-1937 received by the plaintiff from Mr J. D. M. Dean (P. W. 2), First Divisional Engineer, Hyderabad City. It relates to the construction of a road from Museerabad to Bashir Bagh. It states that under the Firman dated 29th Shaban 56 Hijri, H. E. H. The Nizam was pleased to accord sanction to the acquisition of 20 per cent of the land without any compensation for the construction of road, from the owners of the land and that for the excess, land required, compensation will be paid. That letter further mentions that total area of the land belonging to the plaintiff was 7851 sq. yds. out of which 3112 sq. yds. were required for the construction of the road; out of that 1563 sq. yds. being the 20 per cent of the entire area was to be taken without any compensation and the value of the remaining 549 sq. yds. will be paid to the plaintiff. That letter further informed the plaintiff that the value of the additional area which might finally be determined after the marking may be obtained from the department. It is established that road from Musheerabad to Bashir Bagh was laid not only across the plot covered under P. 3 but also across the site purchased under Ex.P-2 in which the suit land is situate. That was obvious because if the road did not touch any portion of Exh. P-2, the entire area of the land belonging to plaintiff would have been only 5114 sq. yds. and not 7815 sq. yds. as mentioned in Exh. P-5. It also establishes that the plaintiff was recognised by the City Improvement Board as the person entitled to compensation in respect of that land. Evidence further discloses that the plaintiff was paid compensation in respect of the land taken from him in excess of 20 per cent referred to earlier. The oral evidence adduced in the case coupled with Exhs. P-2, P-4 and P-5 satisfactorily establishes the fact that the plaintiff was in possession of the suit property till about 1945.8. In addition to the evidence referred to earlier, the High Court has also relied on two other documents namely Exhs. D-8 and D-9, but those documents were produced as additional evidence in the High Court. Their connection with the suit property is not satisfactorily established. Therefore we have excluded them from consideration. If we bear in mind the fact that the question for decision is whether the plaintiff or the 2nd defendant was in possession of the suit property between the years 1930 to 1945, there is hardly any doubt that the preponderance of evidence is in favour of the plaintiffs case. As seen earlier, the defendants have not produced any reliable evidence to support their case. Hence we agree with the High Court that the plaintiff has succeeded in establishing that he was in possession of the suit property prior to 1945.9. It was next contended on behalf of the appellant that in a suit for possession brought on the basis of title, the plaintiff cannot succeed unless he proves his title to the suit property as well as its possession within 12 years. According to the appellant, except in a suit under Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act, the plaintiff for succeeding in the suit, has to prove both existing title to the suit property and its possession within 12 years. We are unable to accept this contention as correct. In our opinion the possession of the plaintiff prior to 1945 is a good title against all but the true owner. The defendants who are mere trespassers cannot defeat the plaintiffs lawful possession by ousting him from the suit property. Possessory title is a good title as against everybody other than the lawful owner. In Ismail Ariff v. Mahomed Ghouse, (1893) 20 Ind App 99 (PC), the Judicial Committee came to the conclusion that a person having possessory title can get a declaration that he was the owner of the land in suit and an injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with his possession. Therein it was observed that the possession of the plaintiff was a sufficient evidence of title as owner against the defendant.10. In Narayana Row v. Dharmachar, (1903) ILR 26 Mad 514 a bench of the Madras High Court consisting of Bhashyam Ayyangar and Moore, JJ., held that possession is, under the Indian, as under the English law, good title against all but the true owner.Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act is in no way inconsistent with the position that as against a wrongdoer, prior possession of the plaintiff, in an action of ejectment, is sufficient title, even if the suit be brought more than six months after the act of dispossession complained of and that the wrongdoer cannot successfully resist the suit by showing that the title and right to possession are in a third person.The same view was taken by the Bombay High Court in Krishnarao Yashwant v. Vasudev Appaji Ghotikar, (1884) ILR 8 Bom 371. That was also the view taken by the Allahabad High Court - See Umrao Singh v. Ramji Das, ILR 36 All 51 = (AIR 1914 All 54 (2)). Wali Ahmed Khan v. Ajudhia Kundu, (1891) ILR 13 All 537. In Subodh Gopal Bose v. Province of Bihar, AIR 1950 Pat 222 the Patna High Court adhered to the view taken by the Madras, Bombay and Allahabad High Courts. The contrary view taken by the Calcutta High Court in Debi Churn Boldo v. Issur Chunder Manjee, (1883) ILR 9 Cal 39; Ertaza Hossein v. Bany Mistry, (1883) ILR 9 Cal 130, Purmeshur Chowdhry v. Birjo Lall Chowdhry, (1890) ILR 17 Cal 256 and Nisa Chand Gaita v. Kanchiram Bagani, (1899) ILR 26 Cal 579, in our opinion does not lay down the law correctly.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]The suit from which this appeal arises was initially instituted on the original side of the High Court of Hyderabad in the year 1949. Therefor to establish his claim of title by adverse possession the 1st defendant must primarily depend on the fact that the second defendant was in possession of the suit property for a period of over nine years before he sold the same to him. Though the second defendant filed a written statement supporting the case of the 1st defendant and though he was present at the time of hearing on several occasions, he was not examined as a witness in this case to support the plea of adverse possession put forward by the defendants. No explanation is forthcoming for his non-examination. This circumstance goes a long way to discredit the defendants plea of adverse possession. The 1st defendants evidence as regards adverse possession is of very little significance as his knowledge of the suit property prior to the date he purchased the same is very little. The only other evidence relied on in support of the plea of adverse possession is that of D. W. 2, Shambhu Prashad who claims to have taken the suit property on lease from the second defendant. The lease deed said to have been executed by him is marked as Exh. D/1. It is not explained how the Ist defendant came into possession of Exh. D/1. Though the suit was filed as far back as 1949, Exh. D/1 was produced into Court for the first time in the year 1960. No explanation has been given for this inordinate delay in producing Exh. D/1, (an unregistered document) in Court. According to D. W. 2, the Ist defendant knew about this document as far back as 1950. Under these circumstances, the High Court was fully justified in rejecting the testimony of D. W. 2 and not relying on Exh. D/1. The other evidence adduced by the Ist defendant relating to the plea of adverse possession was not commended for our acceptance. Therefore we need not consider the same. Hence we agree with the High Court that the defendants have failed to establish their plea of adversewe bear in mind the fact that the question for decision is whether the plaintiff or the 2nd defendant was in possession of the suit property between the years 1930 to 1945, there is hardly any doubt that the preponderance of evidence is in favour of the plaintiffs case. As seen earlier, the defendants have not produced any reliable evidence to support their case. Hence we agree with the High Court that the plaintiff has succeeded in establishing that he was in possession of the suit property prior toare unable to accept this contention as correct. In our opinion the possession of the plaintiff prior to 1945 is a good title against all but the true owner. The defendants who are mere trespassers cannot defeat the plaintiffs lawful possession by ousting him from the suit property. Possessory title is a good title as against everybody other than the lawful owner. In Ismail Ariff v. Mahomed Ghouse, (1893) 20 Ind App 99 (PC), the Judicial Committee came to the conclusion that a person having possessory title can get a declaration that he was the owner of the land in suit and an injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with his possession. Therein it was observed that the possession of the plaintiff was a sufficient evidence of title as owner against the defendant.10. In Narayana Row v. Dharmachar, (1903) ILR 26 Mad 514   a bench of the Madras High Court consisting of Bhashyam Ayyangar and Moore, JJ., held that possession is, under the Indian, as under the English law, good title against all but the true owner.Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act is in no way inconsistent with the position that as against a wrongdoer, prior possession of the plaintiff, in an action of ejectment, is sufficient title, even if the suit be brought more than six months after the act of dispossession complained of and that the wrongdoer cannot successfully resist the suit by showing that the title and right to possession are in a third person.The same view was taken by the Bombay High Court in Krishnarao Yashwant v. Vasudev Appaji Ghotikar, (1884) ILR 8 Bom 371. That was also the view taken by the Allahabad High Court - See Umrao Singh v. Ramji Das, ILR 36 All 51 = (AIR 1914 All 54 (2)). Wali Ahmed Khan v. Ajudhia Kundu, (1891) ILR 13 All 537. In Subodh Gopal Bose v. Province of Bihar, AIR 1950 Pat 222   the Patna High Court adhered to the view taken by the Madras, Bombay and Allahabad High Courts. The contrary view taken by the Calcutta High Court in Debi Churn Boldo v. Issur Chunder Manjee, (1883) ILR 9 Cal 39; Ertaza Hossein v. Bany Mistry, (1883) ILR 9 Cal 130, Purmeshur Chowdhry v. Birjo Lall Chowdhry, (1890) ILR 17 Cal 256 and Nisa Chand Gaita v. Kanchiram Bagani, (1899) ILR 26 Cal 579,   in our opinion does not lay down the law correctly.