Case: Beohar Rajendra Sinha &amp; Ors Vs. State Of M.P. &amp; Ors

with regard to 1/5th share in nazul plots Nos. 34/3, 33 and 171/1 mentioned in the Deputy Commissioners order dated 7th May, 1948 in Revenue Case No. 9/45-46. It was argued on behalf of defendant No. 1 that there was no evidence to show that the plaintiffs were in possession of the land from 1909 to 1932, and the plaintiffs had not established their title by prescription for the statutory period of 60 years. It was contended that the High Court had no justification for holding that the plaintiffs had established the title of "Raiyat Sarkar" and the finding of the High Court was not based upon any evidence. In our opinion, the argument put forward on behalf of defendant No. 1 is well founded and must be accepted as correct. In the settlement of 1863-64 Ex. P-1 the names of Amansingh and Thakuprasad were noted in the remarks column. But the column regarding tenancy right is definitely blank. The owner is shown in the Khasra as the State "Milkiat Sarkar". In the settlement of 1890-91 Amansingh Narpatsingh is again shown in the remarks column of the khata. But the column regarding any kind of tenancy right is again blank. It is clear that in the settlements of 1860 and 1890-91 the ownership of the land is recorded as that of the Government. The possession of the plaintiffs or of their ancestors could not be attributed to ownership or tenancy right of the property. In the settlement of 1909-10, Ex. P-3 there is no entry in the remarks column showing the possession of the ancestors of the plaintiffs. It was said on behalf of the plaintiffs that no notice was given to them of the proceedings of the settlements of 1909-10. Even assuming that this allegation is correct the entries of the khasra P-3 cannot be treated to be a nullity and of no effect. In any event it was open to the plaintiffs to adduce other reliable evidence to prove their possession between the years 1909 to 1932.But the plaintiffs have failed to produce any such evidence. In the nazul settlement of 1922-23 the tank was given new plot numbers 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 and 171 and its area was recorded as 5.24 acres. In this settlement about 2 acres of land was found to be occupied by the Municipal Committee, Jabalpur. The land so found to be occupied was recorded in the possession of the Municipal Committee, Jabalpur and the remaining land was again recorded as "Milkiat Sarkar". There is no entry as regards the remaining land recording anybodys possession in the remarks column. Actually proclamations were made during this settlement and objections were invited as per Ex ID-14. A date was fixed upto 31st August, 1924 but no one came forward. The proclamation clearly recited that the vacant sites which were not in possession of anybody were not recognised as belonging to any person. It is impossible to believe that the plaintiffs or their ancestors were unaware of such a proclamation. Had they been in possession they would not have failed to make a claim. For the period after 1933-34 the plaintiffs produced account books to show that they exercised certain rights.Certain receipts were also proved but they also relate to a period after 1939. We have gone through the oral evidence produced by the plaintiffs and it appears to be unreliable. The result is that for the period 1891 till 1932 there is no reliable oral documentary evidence to prove that the plaintiffs or their ancestors had any possession over the disputed land. On the contrary the disputed land i.e., Phoota Tal was always recognised as Milkiat Sarkar and the State Government was justified in holding that the order of the Deputy Commissioner dated 7th May, 1948 should be set aside.11. In the course of the argument reference was made by Mr. Gupte to the following passage in the Central Provinces Settlement Instructions (Reprint of 1953) page 213:"In dealing with proposed method of the settlement of titles it will be convenient in order to remove all causes for misapprehension among residents, to lay emphasis on the policy of Government in making these settlements. That policy was defined in the Chief Commissioners Resolution No. 502-B-K dated the 19th October, 1917, in the Revenue and Scarcity Department, but its main principles will bear repetition.As it is not the intention of Government in making the settlement to disturb long possession, but only to obtain an accurate record of the lands which are its properly and to secure its right to any land revenue to which it may be entitled, long possession, even without clear proof of a definite grant from Government will be recognised as entitled the holder to possession. In deciding what constitutes long possession in any individual town, regard will be had to the special circumstances of the place, and while this point will be dealt with more particularly in the Deputy Commissioners report, the following general principles will ordinarily be observed:(1) all occupants who are able to prove possession to any land prior to 1891 or such later date as may be fixed for each town, either by themselves or by a valid title from a previous holder, and all occupants who can prove a definite grant or lease from Government will be recorded as entitled to hold such land as against Government (paragraph 6 of the Resolution)."On the basis of this passage it was argued that it was the duty of the settlement officer to treat the plaintiffs as having established their title because they were shown to be in possession in the settlement of the year 1890-91.We are unable to accept this argument as correct. The passage quoted above only applies to a case where the ownership of the land was unknown i. e., where possession is proved for a long time, but its original title could not be traced, and not to a case where the land is recorded as Government land.

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

Explanation:
0[ds]On behalf of defendant No. 1 it was contended by Mr. Shroff that at the time of giving notice the plaintiff and the second defendant were joint and plaintiff No. 1 Raghubir Singh was karta of the joint family. The notice was given on 11th January, 1954 and the suit was instituted on 20th July, 1954. It was admitted that between these two dates there was a disruption of the joint family of which Raghubir Singh was a karta. It was argued that the right of the first plaintiff to represent the family had come to an end before the institution of the suit, and hence plaintiffs 2, 3 and 4 had to comply individually with the provisions of Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code before appearing as plaintiffs in the suit.The object of the notice under Section 80, Civil Procedure Code is to give to the Government or the public servant concerned an opportunity to reconsider its or his legal position and if that course is justified to make amends or settle the claim out of court. The Section is no doubt imperative; failure to serve notice complying with the requirements of the statute will entail dismissal of the suit. But the notice must be reasonably construed. Any unimportant error or defect cannot be permitted to be treated as an excuse for defeating a just claim. In considering whether the provisions of the statute are complied with, the Court must take into account the following matters in each case (1) whether the name, description and residence of the plaintiff are given so as to enable the authorities to identify the person serving the notice; (2) whether the cause of action and the relief which the plaintiff claims are set out with sufficient particularity, (3) whether a notice in writing has been delivered to or left at the office of the appropriate authority mentioned in the Section; and (4) whether the suit is instituted after the expiration of two months next after notice has been served, and the plaint contains a statement that such a notice has been so delivered or left. In construing the notice the Court cannot ignore the object of the legislature, viz., to give to the Government or the public servant concerned an opportunity to reconsider its or his legal position. If on a reasonable reading of the notice the plaintiff is shown to have given the information which the statute requires him to give, any incidental defects or irregularities should be ignored.5. In the present case, the notice was served on 11th January, 1954 by Beohar Raghubir Singh. The notice stated the cause of action arising in favour of the joint family. The requirements as to cause of action, the name, description and residence of the plaintiff were complied with and the reliefs which the plaintiff claimed were duly set out in the notice. It is true that Beohar Raghubir Singh did not expressly describe himself as the karta. But reading the contents of the notice Ex. P-8 in a reasonable manner it appears to us that the claim of Beohar Raghubir Singh was made on behalf of the joint family. It is true that the terms of Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code must be strictly complied but that does not mean that the terms of the notice should be scrutinised in an artificial or pedantic manner.e object of the notice under Section 80, Civil Procedure Code is to give to the Government or the public servant concerned an opportunity to reconsider its or his legal position and if that course is justified to make amends or settle the claim out of court. The Section is no doubt imperative; failure to serve notice complying with the requirements of the statute will entail dismissal of the suit. But the notice must be reasonably construed. Any unimportant error or defect cannot be permitted to be treated as an excuse for defeating a just claim. In considering whether the provisions of the statute are complied with, the Court must take into account the following matters in each case (1) whether the name, description and residence of the plaintiff are given so as to enable the authorities to identify the person serving the notice; (2) whether the cause of action and the relief which the plaintiff claims are set out with sufficient particularity, (3) whether a notice in writing has been delivered to or left at the office of the appropriate authority mentioned in the Section; and (4) whether the suit is instituted after the expiration of two months next after notice has been served, and the plaint contains a statement that such a notice has been so delivered or left. In construing the notice the Court cannot ignore the object of the legislature, viz., to give to the Government or the public servant concerned an opportunity to reconsider its or his legal position. If on a reasonable reading of the notice the plaintiff is shown to have given the information which the statute requires him to give, any incidental defects or irregularities should be ignored.5. In the present case, the notice was served on 11th January, 1954 by Beohar Raghubir Singh. The notice stated the cause of action arising in favour of the joint family. The requirements as to cause of action, the name, description and residence of the plaintiff were complied with and the reliefs which the plaintiff claimed were duly set out in the notice. It is true that Beohar Raghubir Singh did not expressly describe himself as the karta. But reading the contents of the notice Ex. P-8 in a reasonable manner it appears to us that the claim of Beohar Raghubir Singh was made on behalf of the joint family. It is true that the terms of Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code must be strictly complied but that does not mean that the terms of the notice should be scrutinised in an artificial or pedantic manner.The view that we have expressed is born out by the judgment of this Court in State of Andhra Pradesh v. Gundugola Venkata Suryanarayan Garu, 1964-A SCR 945 = (AIR 1965 SC 11  ). In that case the Government of Madras applied the provisions of the Madras Estates Rent Reduction Act, 1947 to the lands in the village Mallindhapuram on the ground that the grant was of the whole village and hence an estate within the meaning of Section 3 (2) (d) of the Madras Estates Land Act,1908. The respondent and another person served a notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure upon the Government of the State of Madras in which they challenged the above mentioned notification an asked the Government not to act upon it. Out of the two persons who gave the notice, the respondent alone file the suit. The trial Court held that the original grant was not of the entire village and was not so confirmed or recognised by the Government of Madras and as it was not an "Estate" within the meaning of S. 3 (2) (d) of the Madras Estates Land Act, the Madras Rent Reduction Act, 1947 did not apply to it. But the suit was dismissed on the ground that although two persons had given notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, only one person had filed the suit. The High Court agreed with the trial Court that the grant was not of an entire village but it also held that the notice was not defective and the suit was maintainable as it was a representative suit and the permission of the Court under Order 1, Rule 8 had been obtained in this case. The High Court granted the respondent the relief prayed for by him. Against the order of the High Court the appellant appealed to this Court which dismissed the appeal holding that in the circumstances of the case there was no illegality even though the notice was given by two persons and the suit was filed by only one. If the Court grants permission to one parson to institute a representative suit and if the person had served the notice under Section 80, the circumstance that another person had joined him in serving the notice but did not join him in the suit, was not a sufficient ground for regarding the suit asthe principle of these decisions has no bearing on the question presented for determination in the present case. In Vellayam Chettiars case, AIR 1947 PC 197   (supra) a notice was given by one plaintiff stating the cause of action, his plain, description and place of his residence and the relief which he claimed although the suit was instituted by him andour opinion, the argument put forward on behalf of defendant No. 1 is well founded and must be accepted as correct. In the settlement of 1863-64 Ex. P-1 the names of Amansingh and Thakuprasad were noted in the remarks column. But the column regarding tenancy right is definitely blank. The owner is shown in the Khasra as the State "Milkiat Sarkar". In the settlement of 1890-91 Amansingh Narpatsingh is again shown in the remarks column of the khata. But the column regarding any kind of tenancy right is again blank. It is clear that in the settlements of 1860 and 1890-91 the ownership of the land is recorded as that of the Government. The possession of the plaintiffs or of their ancestors could not be attributed to ownership or tenancy right of the property. In the settlement of 1909-10, Ex. P-3 there is no entry in the remarks column showing the possession of the ancestors of the plaintiffs. It was said on behalf of the plaintiffs that no notice was given to them of the proceedings of the settlements of 1909-10. Even assuming that this allegation is correct the entries of the khasra P-3 cannot be treated to be a nullity and of no effect. In any event it was open to the plaintiffs to adduce other reliable evidence to prove their possession between the years 1909 to 1932.But the plaintiffs have failed to produce any suchthe nazul settlement of 1922-23 the tank was given new plot numbers 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 and 171 and its area was recorded as 5.24 acres. In this settlement about 2 acres of land was found to be occupied by the Municipal Committee, Jabalpur. The land so found to be occupied was recorded in the possession of the Municipal Committee, Jabalpur and the remaining land was again recorded as "Milkiat Sarkar". There is no entry as regards the remaining land recording anybodys possession in the remarks column. Actually proclamations were made during this settlement and objections were invited as per Ex ID-14. A date was fixed upto 31st August, 1924 but no one came forward. The proclamation clearly recited that the vacant sites which were not in possession of anybody were not recognised as belonging to any person. It is impossible to believe that the plaintiffs or their ancestors were unaware of such a proclamation. Had they been in possession they would not have failed to make a claim. For the period after 1933-34 the plaintiffs produced account books to show that they exercised certain rights.Certain receipts were also proved but they also relate to a period after 1939. We have gone through the oral evidence produced by the plaintiffs and it appears to be unreliable. The result is that for the period 1891 till 1932 there is no reliable oral documentary evidence to prove that the plaintiffs or their ancestors had any possession over the disputed land. On the contrary the disputed land i.e., Phoota Tal was always recognised as Milkiat Sarkar and the State Government was justified in holding that the order of the Deputy Commissioner dated 7th May, 1948 should be setthe basis of this passage it was argued that it was the duty of the settlement officer to treat the plaintiffs as having established their title because they were shown to be in possession in the settlement of the year 1890-91.We are unable to accept this argument as correct. The passage quoted above only applies to a case where the ownership of the land was unknown i. e., where possession is proved for a long time, but its original title could not be traced, and not to a case where the land is recorded as Governmentare unable to accept this argument as correct. The passage quoted above only applies to a case where the ownership of the land was unknown i. e., where possession is proved for a long time, but its original title could not be traced, and not to a case where the land is recorded as Government