Brij Kishore Prasad Singh and Others v. Jaleshwar Prasad Singh and Others

562 BRIJ KISHORE PRASAD SINGH AND OTHERS _v._ JALESHW A;R PRASAD SINGH AND OTHERS _March_ 2, 1973 [A. N. GROVER, K. K. MATHEW AND A. K. MUKHERJEA, JJ.] _Code_ _of_ _Civil Procedure,_ 1908, _S._ _41.-Partition_ _suit_ _co111pro1nised--_ _No_ _decree drcwn up or executed-Subsequent suit_ ~o.r _possession_ _of_ _property allotted under compromise whether barred._ _Bihar_ _Lan<!_ _Reforms_ _Act_ 1959, _s._ _5-Constructive_ _possession suffi-_ _,cient to confer_ _iright_ _under section._ A partitio,n suit between K and his brothers was compromised on July 4, 1947 and different schedules were prepared for the property ·iallotted to the sharers. However none of the parties tg the compromise produced the necessary stamp paper as dij:ected bv. the Court, and no -decree was drawn up by t_he Court. The present suit was filed by the successors-in-interest of K for possession of certain property which under the afdresaid compromiSe had fallen to the share of K. De· fenda,uts 1 and 2 contended .. that K while he was alive executed a _hukumn,ama_ in their favour and they were put in possess'ion of the plaint property as lessees, and so they were entitled to retain possession. They further contended that the suit was barred by limitation and al!o by section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code. The Trial Court decreed the suit. The decree was c~tfirmed in appeal. In second appeal the High Court held that the plaintiff should have paid stamp fee and got the decree drawn up in the partition suit and executed it_ and so the suit was barred by sec. 47 of Civil Procedure Code. The Court further held that since the plaint property had vested in the Bihar Government under the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1959 the plaintiffs we're not e;t>title to maintain the suit. The High Court accordingly allowe<l the appeal and dismissed the suit. In appeal by special leave to this Court two questions that arose for consideration were : ( 1) whether the suit was barred by section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code and (2) whether under the provi•ions of the Reforms Act the plaint property had vested in the Government and therefore the plaintiffs were incompetent to maintain the suit. Allowing the appeal, HELD _:_ (i) It was clear froin the compromise petition that ihe defendants were permitted to occupy the plaint property until the structure which was constructed in the property was removed by them. ·They no doubt 'remained in physical possession but that was not with any intention to possess the property for themselves, but because they were permitted to remain i.p possession until the sU"ucture constructed by them was removed. The only right which they claimed in the written statement was that they were tenants under K by virtue of the _hukumnc.·ma_ executed by him in the'ir favour. At no time they asserted or claimed any right to remain in possession otherwise than as te:nant. lbeir case that K put them in p~session was found against them by the Trial as well as the First Appellate Court. But that would not 'in any way affect the permissive nature of their possession. after the Compromise. Therefore it must be held that K was in constructive possessiap of the property after the compromise and the suit for recovery of _khas_ possession \Vas not barred by section 47 of the Civil l'rocedure Code. [565CE] A B # c D E F G H **A** **8** # c **D** **E** **F** G **H** R. K. SINGH _v._ J. P. SINGH _(Mathew,_ J.) 563 (ii) The High Court wrongly took the view that since K was not **in** **possession** **of** **the** **property at the time the property vested** **in** **the** **State** **he** \V~as **not entitled** **to** **retain possession** **of** **the** **plaint** **projperty** **under** **s.** **5** **of** **the** **Bihar** **Land** **Reforms** **Act 1959,** **as** **a** **te1nant** **under** **the** **State** **free** **of** **rent.** **There** **was** **no** **dispute** **that** **the** **plaint** **property** **'answered** **the** **description of a homestead** **in** **s.** **5** **of** **the** **Act. The** **constructive possession** **of** **·K** **was** **sufficient to enable him** **to** **retain** **possession as tenant** **unde·r** th:~ **section.** **In** **other** **words** **on** **the** **date** **of** **vesting** **of** **the** **property** **in** **the** **Government,** **K** **was,** **for** **the** **purpose** **of** **s.** **5** **in** **possession** **of** **the** **plaint property.** **Whereas** **s.6** **speaks** **of** _**k/ias**_ **possession** s~ction **5** **speaks only** **of** **possess'ion.** **On the date. of** **vesting** **of** **the** **plai:nt** **property** **in** **the State K was** **in** **possession for the** **purpose** **of** **s.** **5** **-and** **he** **became a tenant under the State free** **of** **rent.** **Accordingly the suit for recovery** **of** **possession was maintainable.** **f565H]** CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1466 of 1967. Appeal by special leave from the judgment and decree dated 24th November 1964 of the Patna High Court in appeal from Apellate Decree No. 1029 of 1968. _S._ C. _Agarll'ala,_ and _V._ _J._ _Francis,_ for the appellants. _D._ _Goburdhan,_ for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 & 10. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by MATHEW, J.-This is an appeal, by special leave, by the plaintiffs from a decree passed in appeal by 1he Patna High Court dismissing their suit for recovery of the, plaint property with mesne profits. Plaintiffs I to 4 are the daughter's sons of one Kishundeo Singh, plaintiffs 5 and 6 are his daughters and plaintilf 7 is his widow. The plaint property together with some other properties belonged to the joint family of which Kishundeo Singh and his brothers were the members. Suit No. 60/34 of 1944-46 was instituted for partition of the properties. That suit was compromised on July 4, 1947 and different schedules were prepared for the property allotted to the shares ~nd sons property was Mt in the joint possession of all of them. The plaint property fell to the share of Kishundeo Singh under the compromise. It may be mentioned that as none of the parties to the compromise produced the necessary stamp paper as directed b!y the Court, no decree was drawn up by the Court. In the. suit for recovery of possession of the plaint property filed by the plaintiffs, defend~nts I and 2 contended that Kishundeo Singh, while be was alive, executed a _hukumnama_ in 1354 Fs. in their favour and they were put in possession of the plaint property as lessees and so they were entitled to remain in possession. They further contended that the suit was barred by limitation and also by s. 47 of the Civil Procedure Code. 364 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1973] 3 S.C.R. The Trial Court found that Kishundeo Singh o1Jllained possession of the plaint property on the basis of the compr9ntlse, that the case of the defendants 1 and 2 that Kishundeo Singh had executed a _hukumnama_ in their favour and that they obtain possession of the plaint property under it was false, that the suit wru; not barred by limitation or bys. 47 of the Civil Procedure Code and decreed the suit. This decree was confirmed in appeal. It was again&! this decree that ithe second appeal was filed by the defendants before the High Court. The High Court held that the plaintiff should have paid the stamps fee and got the decree drawn up in Suit No. 80/34 of 1944-46 and executed it and so the suit was barred by s. 4 7 of the Civil Procedure Code. The Court further held that since the plaint property had vasted in the Bihar Government under the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1959, hereinafter referred to as the Act, the plaintiffs were not entitled to maintain the suit. Therefore, the High Court allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit. The two questions that arise for consideration in this appeal are: whether the suit was barred by s. 47 of the Civil Procedure Code and whether under the provisions of the Act, the plaint property had vested in the Government and, therefore, the plaintiffs were incompetent to maintain the suit. As the first question, the High Court was of the view that, though none of the parties to the compromise had produced the necessary stamps paper as directed by the Court and no formal decree was drawn up, t11e plaintiffs could not have instituted a fresh suit for recovery of possession of the plaint properly as their only remedy was to execute the decree in suit No. 80/34 of 194446. In other words, !he High Court held that the plaintiffs should hawe produced the necessary stamp paper and got the final drawn up and executed it, instead of filing a Sl•it for the relief which they could have obtained by executing the decree and so, the suit was barred by s.47 of the Civil Procedure Code. The Trial Court had found that Kishundeo Singh obtained possession of the plaint property without the assistance of the Court in pursuance of the compromise but that he allowed the defendants to occupy the same. To put it in other words, the finding of the Trial Court was that the defendants were in permissive occupation. The Trial Court also found that the definite case of the defendants was that they were put in possession of the property under the _hukumnama_ and, therefore, their possession was clearly that of lessees under an agricultural lease. The lower appellate Court held that there was no allegation in the plaint that Kishundeo Singh obtained _khas_ possession under the com1'f01llise nor was there any evidence to show that he obtained A B # c D E F G H A B # c D E F G H B. K. SINGH _v._ _J._ P. SINGH _(Mathew,_ _J.)_ 565 _khas_ possession but that defendants 1 and 2 continued in as before the compromise. Before the compromise, Kishundeo Singh and the defei_idants were in possession as tenants-in-common. The actual possession of the defendants, of the plaint property, was also· the constructive possession of Kishundeo Singh. So, when the lower appellate Court said that the defendants continued in possession as before, it can only mean that after the compromise the defendants were in possession acknowledging the title of Kishundeo Singh. That apart, defend11nts l and 2 had no case that they intended to possess the property as· ·their own. It is clear from the compromise petition that the defendants were permitted to occupy the plaint property until the structure which was constructed in the property. was removed by them. They, no doubft, remained in physical posses, sion, but that was not with 11ny intention to possess the property for themselves but because they were permitted to ramain . in possession until the structure constructed by them was removed. The only right which they claimed in the written statement was that they were tenants under Kishundeo Singh by virtue of the _hukumnama_ executed by him in their favour. At no time they asserted or claimed any right to remain in possession otherwise than as tenant. As already stated, their case that Kishundeo Singh put them in possession under the _hukumnama_ was found against by the Trial as well as the First Appellate Court. But that would not in any way affect the permissive nature of their possession after the compromise. Therefore, we think that Kishundeo Singh was in constructive possession of the property after the compromise and, the suit for recovery of _khas_ possession was not ·barred by s.4 7 of the Civil Procedure Code. The second ground on which the High Court dismissed the suit was that the plaint property had vested in the State of Bihar under the Act a.nd the plaintiffs had; therefore, no right to proceed with the suit and obtain a decree for possession. The suit was instituted on March 7, 1953; die property vested in the State on Jan.uary 26, 1955, under the Ac~ .. There is no dispute that the plamt property answers the description of a homestead in s. _5_ of the Act. The ~Ugh Court was of the view that since Kishundeo. Singh was not m possession at the time die property vestC'.d in the State, he was not entitled to retain possession of the plaint property under s. _5_ as a tenant under the State free of rent. We are of the opinion that the constructive possession of Kishundeo Singh was sufficient to enable him to retain possession as a tenant under the section. In other words, on the date of the vesting of the property in the Gove~ent, Kishundeo Singh was, for the purpose of s. _S,_ in possession of the plaint property. In this oontext, it may be noted 4-L761Sup,CIJ73 566 SUPJ!.EME COURT REPORTS [1973] 3 S.C.R. that tbe language of s. 5 is in sharp contrast with that of s. 6. The A ·material pa rt of s. 5 states _:_ "5. _Hcmesteads_ _of_ _inW!rmediaries_ _to_ _be_ _retained_ _by them_ _as_ _tenants-(_ 1) With effect from the date of vesting, all homesteads comprised in an estate or tenure and being in the possession of, an intermediary on the date of such vesting shall, subject to the provisions of sections 7 A and 7B, be deemed to be settled by the State with such ill'lermediary and he shall be entitled to retain possession of the land comprised in such homesteads and to hold it as a tenant under the Staie free of rent." The relevant portion of s. 6 is in these terms : "6. _Certain_ _other lands_ _in_ _khas_ _possession_ _of_ _intermediaries_ _to_ _be_ _retained_ _by_ _them_ _on_ _payment_ _of_ _rent_ _as_ _raiyats_ _having_ _occu-_ _pancy_ _rights-(_ 1) On and from the date of vesting all lands used for agricultural or horticultural purposes, which were in _khas_ possession of an intermediary on the date of such vesting, .... " B # c Whereas s. 6 speaks of _khas_ possession, s. 5 mentions only of possession. We find that on the date of vesting of the plaint D property in the State, Kishundeo Singh was in possession for the purpose of s. 5 and that he became a tenant under the State free of rent and that the suit for recovery of possession was maintainable. In the result we allow the appeal and set aside the decree of the High Court and restore the decree passed by the lower appellate E Court, but we make no order as to costs. G.C. _Appeal allowed._