Case: Prabhu Vs. Ramdev &amp; Others

1. The appellant Prabhu is the owner of agricultural land bearing Khasra Nos. 224,215, 244, 299, 320, 506,617 and 687 situated in village Milakpur, Tehsil Behror, District Alwar, in the State of Rajasthan. The appellants father Jora had executed a usufructuary mortgage of the said land in about 1936 for a period of twenty years in favour of one Ganga Din,. After the expiry of the period prescribed by the said mortgage, the appellant obtained a decree for redemption on July 16, 1956. This decree declared that the mortgage and all encumbrances created by the mortgagee or any person claiming under him were extinguished and directed the mortgagee to deliver possession of the mortgaged property to the appellant.2. It appears that during the continuance of the mortgage, the mortgagee Ganga Din had let out the aforesaid land to respondents 1 to 3 Ramdev. Yadram and Nathu, respectively3. Meanwhile, on October 15, 1955 the Rajastan Tenancy Act, 1955 (No. 3 of 1955) (hereinafter called the Act) had come into force. On July 28, 1956, the appellant instituted the present suit for possession of the land in question against the three respondents. This suit was tried by the Sub-divisional Officer. In this suit the appellant had alleged that after the redemption decree had been passed in favour of the appellant, the respondents had in fact delivered possession of the property to the appellant, but a few days thereafter they had trespassed into the property and obtained its possession wrongfully. This plea was resisted by the respondents on the ground that they had not surrendered possession of the property to the appellant as alleged by him and that under the relevant provisions of the Act they were entitled to remain in possession of this property. On these pleadings the learned Sub-Divisional Officer framed two issues. They1. Whether the respondents are trespassers in respect of the fields and are liable for ejectment; andNo. 2. to what relief, if any, the appellant is entitled tofound that the respondents were not trespassers as alleged by the appellant and as such the appellant was not entitled to any relief. In the result, the appellants suit was dismissed.Against this decision the appellant preferred an appeal before the Additional Commissioner, Ajmer. The appellate authority reversed the finding of the trial Court and held that the appellant was entitled to eject the respondents. The respondents challenged the correctness of this order by preferring a second appeal before the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer. Their appeal succeeded and in consequence, the order passed by the appellate authority was set aside and that passed by the trial Judge was restored. The Board has held that by virtue of the provisions of S. 15 of the Act, the possession of the respondents was unassailable and they could be ejected only in accordance with the relevant section of the said Act. Since none of the ground available to the appellant under the Act had been proved, he was not entitled to a claim for ejectment.The validity of the Boards decision was challenged by the appellant by moving the Rajasthan High Court in its writ jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution. It was urged by the appellant before the High Court that the order passed by the Board was plainly erroneous in law and as such should be set aside. This petition, however, failed and was dismissed by the High Court. It is against this decision that the appellant has come to this Court by special leave.

Court's reasoning:
It must be remembered that these observations were made by reference to the normal relationship between the mortgagor and the mortgagee and their respective rights and obligations as determined by relevant provisions of the Transfer of Property Act. Having made these observations, however, this Court has taken the precaution to point out that even in regard to tenants inducted into the land by a mortgagee cases may arise where the said tenants may acquire rights of special character by virtue of statutory provisions which may, in the meanwhile, come into operation. A permissible settlement by a mortgagee in possession with a tenant in the course of prudent management and the springing up of rights in the tenant conferred or created by statute based on the nature of the land and possession for the requisite period, it was observed, was a different matter altogether. Such a case is clearly an exception to the general rule prescribed by the Transfer of Property Act. It will thus be seen that while dealing with the normal position under the Transfer of Property Act, this Court specifically pointed out that the rights of the tenants inducted by the mortgagee may conceivably be improved by virtue of statutory provisions which may meanwhile come into operation. That is precisely what has happened in the present case. During the continuance of the mortgage S. 15 of the Act came into operation and that made the respondents Khatedars who are entitled to claim the benefit of S. 161 of thethat case it was held that the persons inducted by mortgagees could not be raiyats within the meaning of S. 5 (3) of the Bihar Tenancy Act so as to acquire any rights of occupancy under S. 21 of the said Act. This conclusion, however, flows from the basic fact that the mortgagees who inducted the tenants into the land were neither proprietors nor tenure holders as defined by the said Act.Section 5 (3) of the said Act provides that a person shall not be deemed to be a raiyat unless he holds land either immediately under a proprietor or immediately under a tenure-holder; and so, when tenants claimed the status of raiyat, in that case it became necessary to consider whether they held the land under a proprietor or under a tenure-holders, and since it was clear that the mortgagees were neither proprietors nor tenure-holders, the tenants inducted by them could not claim the benefit of S. 5 (3). It would thus be seen that this decision turn inevitably upon the relevant provisions of the Bihar Act and the said provisions show that no statutory benefit had been conferred on the tenants as claimed by them under S. 5 (3) of the said Act. This decision, therefore, does not lay down any general proposition on which Mr. Misra can possibly rely.In the result, the view taken by the Board about the status of the respondents is right and the High Court was, therefore, justified in dismissing the appellants writ petition filed before it