Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

RANGI LAL versus RAM DAS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Rangi Lal v. Ram Das - FIRST APPEAL No. 187 of 1981 [2005] RD-AH 874 (24 March 2005)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

      Reserved

First Appeal 187 of 1981

Rangi Lal( deceased)  and others Vs.  Ram Dass(deceased) and others

Hon'ble R.K.Rastogi,J

This  is an appeal  against the judgment  and  decree dated  6.4.1981 passed by Sri   Parmeshwar VI Addl. Distrtict  Judge,  Basti in original suit No. 27 of  1968,  Rangi Lal and others  Vs.  Ram Das and others

The facts giving  rise to this appeal , in brief, are that  the  plaintiffs Swami Nath  and  Smt. Parwati originally   filed  the aforesaid  suit against the defendants  Ram Das, Bhagwan Das , Sarjoo and Smt. Gujrati in the court of  Munsif, Basti in the year 1965  alleging  that  one  Laxman  had three sons  named Swami Nath, plaintiff no.1,  Sunder and Saran. Swami Nath's first wife  died  issueless . After her death  Swamti  Nath  remarried   Smt. Gujrati, defendant no.4 about  45 or 46 years ago. Smt. Gujrati's first  marriage  had taken place  with Nand  Gopal,  sweet maker and she had given birth  to three sons  named  Ram Das ,  Bhagwan Das and Sarjoo,  defendant nos. 1 to 3 and a daughter,  after marriage with Nand Gopal.  Their daughter had died  long   ago. After death of   Nand Gopal when  Gujrati  remarried  with Swami Nath,  her  sons  defendants no. 1 to 3, who were  of very young age, came to the house of Swami  Nath with  their mother Gujrati. After marriage  of Swami Nath  with  Gujrati,   a daughter named Parwati, plaintiff no.2   was born. Swami Nath's brother   Saran  went to  Bhama Bazar,  and he  died there. His Children are still residing  at  Bhama Bazar. Swami Nath and his brother Sunder  continued  the business of sweet maker, and they had  good  income, and out of  that income Swami Nath purchased  a house from Ram Samujh and Narain  Bhuj on 25.6.1923 for  Rs.365/-. After this  purchase,  he demolished  a portion of the house  and reconstructed the same in part   Pucca and in part  Khaprail  posh  and Swami Nath used to reside in that house alongwith Smt Gujrati and defendants no.1 to 3. Thereafter Swami  Nath purchased another house on 21.6.1932 in his own name and in the name of  his brother  Sunder from Sumer Kunjara for  Rs.485/- . It was closely adjacent  to the  aforesaid house purchased on 25.6.1923. This house was also reconstructed,  and it was  included  with the aforesaid first house  purchased in 1923. Now both these  houses are  in the shape of  one house  described  in  Schedule -A of the plaint. The defendants no. 2 and 3 left this house after taking another house  on rent  about 14 or 15 years ago  but defendant no.1 Ram Das  continued to reside with   Swami Nath  in the above house which is described in  Schedule -A of the plaint . Thereafter Swami Nath  purchased another house in his own name and  in the name of  Sunder in the year 1956. This house was adjacent to the District Hospital Basti and  Swami Nath shifted  to that  house  near the hospital  alongwith  his wife Gujrati.  Swaminath's brother  Saran  died. He had  no share in the  disputed house. Sunder  another brother of Swami  Nath  had not married and he  died issueless in the year 1956. The entire  share of Sunder was inherited  by Swami  Nath.  Smt. Parwati gave birth to six  sons named   Parmatma Prasad, Lalji,  Ram Ji,  Ram Chandra, Ram Shanker and  Bhagwati Prasad and two daughters named Tara  Devi and Maya  Devi.  When  Swami  Nath started to  reside  in the house near District Hospital, he permitted defendant no.1 Ram Das  to reside in the house   described  in schedule-A of the plaint  as a licensee on a condition that whenever  this   house    would  be   needed   by  Swami Nath,  Ram Das  will vacate it. Ram Das had purchased  another  house out of  his own income near the house of  Dr. Kamla Datt Tripathi   and had  reconstructed  it  Pucca. Swami  Nath executed  a Gift-deed of the disputed house described  in schedule A of the plaint in favour of   Smt. Parwati, plaintiff no.2 on 27.9.1960 and  put her in possession  of the house.  Ram  Das defendant no.1  got annoyed due to execution of the   gift deed  and so he  took his  mother Gujrati  with  him and  got filed  O.S.  No. 22/62 in the court of Civil Judge Basti against Swami Nath and Parwati for maitenance  alleging  in the plaint that  the house  specified in schedule-A was purchased  from the money of   Smt. Gujrati. The suit was decreed  in respect of  maintenace  of  Rs.15/- per month and the remaining suit  was dismissed. Thereafter Smt.  Parwati and her  husband   Rangi Lal and children  asked defendant no.1 Ram Das  to vacate the  above house but he did not  do so. Thereafter  a registered notice  dated 12.11.1964 was served  on  defendant no.1 Ram Das,  who in reply   sent the envelope containing a  blank paper in it. The licence granted in favour of defendant no.1  had been determined . There was  an iron safe kept in the house   in which   original  sale deeds and other papers  of Municipal Board were kept. Its key was with Ram Das defendant no.1 who had  taken  all those documents  in his  possession  and  refused to return the  safe to the plaintiffs, hence the plaintiffs  filed this suit  for  eviction of  defendant no.1 from the disputed house and for recovery of  Rs.400/- being prices of the safe. The plaint of  the suit  after amendment  in the valuation clause  was  reinstituted  in the court of Civil Judge Basti  in the year 1968 and   then it was  registered  as O.S. No.27/68.

The defendant no.1 contested the suit . He admitted that  the marriage  of his mother  Gujrati had taken place  with   Swami Nath. He, however,  pleaded that the   deceased Swami Nath  and Parwati were  not owner of the  disputed house and  actually this house  was  purchased by  him  and he was not residing  in that house  as a licensee.  Swami Nath  was  an ordinary person and  Smt. Gujrati was a very rich lady and so Swami Nath  remarried  Gujrati. Smt. Gujrati  had taken much cash and golden ornaments with her  to   the house of Swami Nath at the time of  her re-marriage  and out of that money  Swami  Nath  had  purchased  both the  houses on 25.6.23 and 21.6.32. Both these houses were  purchased  for defendants no. 1 to 3 who were  minor at that time and so  Swami Nath and his brother were  looking after the entire business. The  names of Swami Nath and Sunder were entered in the aforesaid  both sale deeds as Benami. Plaintiff and Smt. Gujrati  never resided  in these houses. They continued to reside in the   rented house and  when they took the house  near  District Hospital Basti, they  started  to reside  in that house after remarriage of   Swami Nath  with Gujrati,  and  when  some issues were  born   to  Gujrati the love and affection  of Swami  Nath  towards  defendants no.1 to 3 decreased and then in the year 1933 or 1934 the defendant  started to reside in the  disputed house , thereafter  a partition  took place  amongst  the defendants  no. 1 to 3 and  defendant no. 2 and 3  after taking   price of their share  in  the house  left  the  disputed house and  defendant no.1 alone  continued to reside in it as its owner. Defendant no.1 was also  running sweet shop and  he had good income from that shop and then he  reconstructed   the house  which  he   had purchased vide  sale deed dated  25.6.23 and 21.6.32. The defendant no.1 reconstructed this house  after obtaining  permission from the  Notified Area and  got  the   plan sanctioned.  Defendant no.1 deposited  all taxes of the house and  his name is also entered in the  tax register. The  names of Swami Nath  and Sunder were entered  in the old  Municipal  Register  on the basis of sale deed in their  favour but the tax of the house was  always being deposited by the defendant no.1 in his own name. The  defendant no.1 did not  feel  any necessity  to get  the names of Swami Nath and Sunder struck off from the Municipal record. Smt. Parwati  was a woman  of  loose character, she   developed  illicit relation with  Triloki and then she left  her husband Rangi Lal and started to reside  with  Swami Nath and then  she came in  close  contact   of  Triloki  who is a very clever  person . He also  took  Swami  Nath under his influence and then on the basis of  entries in the  Municipal record in favour of  Swami Nath  and Sunder he got   a fictitious   Gift deed executed  by Swami Nath in favour of  Parwati . This Gift deed has got no   effect upon the  rights of  defendant no.1.When Smt. Gujrati   came to know  about this  Gift deed she  quarreled with Swami  Nath and Parwati   then   Swami Nath and  Parvati forced her  to leave   his  house and also snatched  her ornaments etc.  Being aggrieved with  this  Smt. Gujrati filed  O.S. No. 22 of 1962 against  Swami Nath for  maintenance . The defendant no.1 had been residing  in the disputed   house  as  owner and  he had  been  in its adverse possession for  more than 12 years and thus  he had become  its owner and suit was barred by limitation. All  the original  documents of the house are with the defendant and so the plaintiff had developed  a fictitious  story of  iron  locker in the house .  The defendant had   incurred  heavy expenses  in the  repairing and construction of the house  within the knowledge of the plaintiff Swami Nath and he never objected  at that time,  and so  the suit was barred by the principle of  estoppel. The defendants no. 2 and 3 had no concern with this house and they had  unnecessarily been  impleaded. The Gift deed  was under stamped  as well as  improperly  registered . The defendant no.1 was not  a licensee  in the house . The plaintiffs'   allegation that  the defendant had sent  a blank  paper in reply   to  the notice is false. The plaintiffs' suit is  under valued  and the court fee paid is  insufficient. The suit  was bad for multifariousness.

The plaintiff Swami Nath  died during the pendency of the suit   then his name was deleted and Smt. Parwati  continued as  sole plaintiff. She also  died during the pendency of the suit. Thereafter her husband  Rangi Lal, and sons and daughters were impleaded as plaintiffs no. 1/1 to 1/9.  Smt.  Gujrati defendant no.4 and Sarjoo,   defendant no.3 also died  during the pendency of the suit. The name of Gujrati was deleted and heirs of  Sarjoo were impleaded as defendants no.3/1 to 3/7. The remaining defendants supported the case of defendant  no.1 in their written statement.

The following  issues were framed  in the   suit :-

1. Whether  Plaintiff no.1 was  the owner of the house in suit and was competent  to transfer and has  transferred the same by  gift deed dated 22.9.60 to plaintiff no. 2 ?

2. Whether  defendant no.1 is licensee   of the plaintiff and is liable to be evicted ?

3. Whether in two   sale deeds dated 25.6.23 and 21.6.32, the name of  plaintiff no.1 was  fictitiously  entered  as benamidar and defendants no. 1 to 3 were real vendees of the said sale  deeds and properties were purchased out of  funds of defendants no. 1 and 2 provided by their mother   Smt. Gujrati ?

4. Whether the defendant no.1 is in possession of house in suit as owner?

5. Whether  defendant no.1 had been in possession  of the house in suit as owner for more than 12 years and has perfected his title  by adverse possession?

6. Whether  the suit is  barred by principle of estoppel ?

7. Whether  gift deed dated 27.9.60 is ineffective and illegal  as alleged  in para 21 of the written statement?

8. Whether  the defendant no.1 is in possession of safe in suit ? If so  are the plaintiff  entitled   to its price or damages. If so,  to what  amount?

9. Is the  suit bad for  multifariousness ?

10. To what relief, if any,  is the plaintiff  entitled?

11. Whether the suit is  undervalued and court fee  paid is insufficient?

The learned  Civil Judge ( Senior Division ) decided  issue no.11 as  preliminary issue  and held that  the suit   should be valued  at  Rs.30,000/- and then  the suit was accordingly valued   and deficiency of  court fee was made good. The suit was decided  by Sri  Parmeshwar, VI Additional District Judge, Basti. He took  issues no. 2 to 5  together  and held that  the plaintiff No.1  Swami Nath  was  not benamidar but he was the owner of the house  in dispute. He further held that there was no evidence to show  that  the defendant no.1 was  the licensee  and that his possession was that of  licensee   or permissive. He further held that  there  is no evidence  on record to show  that  the defendant  no.1  was  a licensee   in the house  and  further held that  even if it is presumed  that his possession  was that of  a licensee or permissive, the licence of the defendant came to an end in year 1951 and he had been  living  since then  as trespasser  .The present suit was filed  in  year 1965 and by that time  the defendant no.1 had been in possession  as owner for more than 12 years. He had perfected his  title  by adverse  possession .  He  held   on issue no.1 that  since the defendant no.1 had become owner of the house  by adverse possession  and the plaintiff Swami Nath  had not been residing in that  house within  12 years of  its construction, he  ceased to be owner  of  that house  and the Gift deed executed by him in favour of  plaintiff no. 2 Parwati did not  confer any title upon her.  He held on issue no.6 that  the suit was  barred by estoppel. He   also  held on issue no.7 that the  Gift deed was  under stamped  and so the  Gift deed was invalid.  He held  on issue no.8 that no  iron safe  was kept   by Swami Nath in the disputed house and so the plaintiffs were not entitled to   the price of the iron safe. He  held  on issue no.9  that  the suit was bad for multifariousness.  He  also  held on issue no.10 that  the plaintiffs were not entitled  to any of the reliefs claimed . He, therefore, dismissed the suit. Being aggrieved  by that  judgment and  decree the plaintiffs have filed the present appeal .

During the  pendency of  the present appeal  the appellants. No. 1/1 Rangi Lal , � Parmatma Prasad,  1/6  Ram Shanker   and  defendants no.1  Ram Das and defendant no.2 Bhagwan Das  also  died .  Their  heirs have been substituted.

I have heard   the learned counsel for  both he parties  and have perused the record.

It is to be seen that  as per plaint allegations  the disputed house specified in   schedule -A of the plaint originally  consisted of  two houses out of whom one was purchased by Swami Nath from  Ram Samujh and Narain Bhuj on 25.6.1923 for Rs.365/- vide  a registered sale deed and another house   was  purchased  by Swami Nath and his brother Sunder  vide registered sale deed dated 21.6.1932 for Rs.485/-, and thereafter both these houses were  jointly   reconstructed by  Swami Nath from   his own income giving them   shape of one house which has been  described in schedule -A of the  plaint. The plaintiff's case is that  Sunder  died  issuless and so  his share  in the house  vested in Swami Nath, and  he  gifted this house in favour of his  daughter Parwati,  plaintiff no.2 on 27.9.1960 vide a   registered  Gift deed,  and  thus the plaintiff no.2 became the owner of the disputed house as specified in Schedule -A. The case of the defendant no.1 Ram Das is that  Swami Nath  and  his brother  were poor persons and  Gujarati Devi  was a rich lady, and after  her second marriage  with Swami Nath  she came to the house of    Swami Nath  with much ornaments and  cash, and  the  aforesaid two houses were  purchased  by Swami Nath from the  money of Smt.Gujarati,  and  aforesaid sale deeds  in favour of Swami Nath  and  his  brother  Sunder were   Benami  transactions . The defendant no.1 further  alleged that these  houses were  purchased  for  defendants no. 1 to 3 sons of  Nand Gopal and  that  Swami Nath and  his  brother did not  reside in  these houses but they  took another house near  the  sweet shop  adjacent to  the District Hospital and they resided in that house.  Their allegations are  that  the  defendants no. 2 and 3   left the  disputed house  after taking price of   their share  from defendant no.1, and  defendant no.1  continued to  reside in this house as  its owner, and plaintiff no.1 had no right to    gift this house  to  plaintiff no.2 and the Gift deed executed   in favour of plaintiff  no.2 is  invalid.

It was further pleaded  that  even if  the plaintiff no.1 is  treated to be  owner of the house  on the basis of the sale deeds dated 25.6.1923  and 21.6.1932 in his favour , the  defendant no.1 had  completed his  ownership by adverse possession  of the house  and so  the plaintiffs' suit  was barred by limitation . On the other hand,   the plaintiff's case is that  he  had  simply  permitted the  defendant no.1 to  reside in the house  as a licensee  and so  the defendant no.1  could not  claim  its  ownership.

The learned A.D.J. has held  on the basis of evidence that the plaintiff no.1 Swami  Nath   acquired  ownership of the house  vide  registered sale deeds dated  25.6. 1923 and 21.6.1932 and that these houses were purchased by  him out of  his  own income,  and the allegation of defendant no.1 that these houses were purchased  from the money of  Smt. Gujarati Devi,  and that the sale deeds  in the name of  Swami Nath and Sunder were  benami was not approved. This finding  of  the learned A.D.J. has not been challenged  by either party.  The learned A.D.J.   further held that  there was  no   satisfactory  evidence  to prove the allegation of the plaintiff that  the defendant no.1 was permitted  by the plaintiff no.1 to reside in the house  as a licensee. On the other  hand  he has held  that  there was sufficient evidence to this effect  that the defendant  was residing  in the house   in the capacity of its owner, and  in any case  he had acquired  its ownership by adverse possession also, and so  the  plaintiff no.1 ceased to be its owner and  he could not  execute  its Gift deed in favour of  plaintiff no.2. This finding  of the learned A.D.J. has been  challenged by  the  learned  counsel for the appellant.

Let  me now consider on  merit  this  finding of learned A.D.J.

First of all   I take  up  the evidence which the plaintiff appellants produced in support of the allegation that the defendant no.1 was residing  in the disputed  house specified  in schedule-A of the plaint as a licensee.

The plaintiff has produced   Sri  Rangi Lal  as P.W. 1.  He is son-in-law of  Swami Nath  and husband of Parwati. He has stated that the  defendants were  permitted to live in the disputed house  with the permission of Swami Nath . However,  in his cross examination   he  stated that  he came  into  contact  with Swami Nath after his marriage with Parwati and that  the above permission  to  defendant no.1 to reside in the disputed house was not given in his presence. He further  admitted that  his  marriage with Parwati  had not taken place  in the disputed house but it was solemnized  in  a rented house  near  the District Hospital where Swami Nath was residing  with his wife Gujrati. He further admitted that  the defendants had been living in the disputed  house  for a long time  and  Swami Nath  had been  residing  in the house near the District Hospital for more than 20 to 30 years prior to execution of  the  Gift deed. It is to be seen that the Gift deed  was executed  in favour of  Parwati  by Swami Nath  in  year 1960, and according to  the above  statement of  Rangi Lal( P.W. 1), the defendant no.1  had been    in separate possession of the disputed house  for more than 20 years  by that time. Thus,  the  statement of  Rangi Lal  fails  to prove that Swami Nath  permitted  the defendant no.1  to reside  in the disputed house as a licensee.

The plaintiffs also examined Smt. Munakka  as P.W. 2. She  also admitted  in the cross examination  that she  was not present  when the licence was granted  by  Swami Nath to defendant no.1 for  residing  in the disputed house .  Thus, her statement  also fails  to prove that Swami Nath  had granted  any licence to defendant no.1 to reside in the disputed house. P.W. 3 Triloki  also stated that  Ram Das defendant no.1 was residing in the disputed house  with the permission of Swami Nath  but he   too is not  an eye witness of the said  permission.

Now, I take up the evidence  led by the defendant no.1. Before taking up this  evidence  it may be pointed out  that  as per plaint allegations Swami Nath  had purchased the disputed house  vide  two sale deeds dated 25.6.23 and 21.6.1932 but the Municipal assessment  of  these houses  is in the name of defendant no.1 Ram Das  since 1937-38 as  is apparent  from the assessment  list  of the Municipal  record ( exhibit A-1 to A-3).  The defendant no.1  had  also been depositing house  and water tax  continuously  as is apparent from  the tax receipts  exhibits A-10 to A-18 and A-113 to A-125 for the period from 1951-52 to 1976-77. The receipts of  deposit of  electricity charges  are also in the name of  Ram Das Halwai, defendant no.1 exhibit A-19 to A-37 and A-42 to A-112. These receipts  are for the period from 1963 to 1978. All these  documents go to show that the defendant no.1 had been  residing  in the house in dispute as its owner and he had obtained its assessment in his  name   in the year 1937 and had also been   depositing  its  tax as well as  electricity charges.  All these facts go  to  show that  even if  the  house was purchased  by Swami Nath in his  own name  vide sale deeds dated 25.6.1923 and 21.6. 1932, the defendant no.1, who  was  his  step son, had started to reside in the house as its owner  denying the title of Swami Nath since 1937 and  when no action was taken  within a period of 12 years from the above  date to oust  him from the  house,  he apparently  acquired  the title to the house  by  adverse possession.  The plaintiffs have alleged that  Swami Nath had  reconstructed  the house  after  purchasing it  vide  the  aforesaid two sale deeds, on the other  hand the allegation of defendant no.1 is that  he had  reconstructed  the house . The learned A.D.J. has  pointed out in  his judgment that  if  Swami Nath  had reconstructed  this  house  he would have  resided  in this house  and  would not have  gone to  reside in a rented house  near District Hospital and   thus the  fact that Swami Nath  after purchasing  the above house left it  for  being used by Ram Das  and  that he (Swami Nath) started to  reside in  a rented house  near the  District Hospital falsifies his case  that he had reconstructed  the disputed house . The position, in this way,  is  that  the  learned A.D.J. has rightly held that the defendant no.1 had  acquired  title to the  house  by adverse possession  for more than 12 years  and the plaintiff's suit  was barred by limitation.

Learned  counsel for the plaintiffs cited before  me the  following  rulings of Hon'ble  Apex Court  on the point of  adverse possession :

AIR 1954 SC 758 (Sheodhari Rai Vs. Suraj Prasad Singh),  AIR 1964 SC 1254 (S.M. Karim Vs. Bibi sakina), 1972 SSC 274(The State Bank of Travancore Vs. Aravindan Kunju Panicker & others), 2001(9) SCC 385(Bhura Mogiya & other Vs. Satish  Pagariya & others), 2002(3) SCC 258 (Konda Lakshmana Bapuji Vs. Govt. of  AP & others), 2003(7) SCC 481 (Deva (Dead) through LR's  Vs. Sajjan Kumar (Dead) by LR's), 2004(1) SCC 551 (V. Rajeshwari (Smt) Vs. TC Saravanbava).

The learned counsel for the plaintiffs relying upon  the above rulings of  Hon'ble Supreme Court   on the point  of  adverse possession  contended that  the defendant no.1 could  not be treated to have acquired  title to the house  by  his so called  adverse possession .

I have   carefully gone through the  aforesaid rulings . It has been held  in the  aforesaid rulings  of Hon'ble   Apex Court  that  where  possession of the defendant  is permissive, it can not be  held to be  adverse, and  there must be assertion of adverse  title   to the knowledge of  true owner, and  then only  the adverse possession  can be claimed . It is to be seen that in the present case  the defendant no.1 got the disputed house  assessed in his  name in the year 1937-38. He has  also  been depositing  the tax of  the house  as well as  electricity   bills and  when his name had been  recorded as owner of the house in the Municipal record it amounted to assertion of   title  in the house  adverse to that of  Swami Nath in whose name the sale deeds  of the disputed houses were  executed,  and since  Swami Nath  did not take any action  against Ram Das defendant no.1  within a  period of 12 years  from 1937 and the  name of defendant no.1 remained  recorded in the Municipal record as  owner of the house, the defendant no.1 apparently acquired title by adverse possession . The suit  is   barred  by limitation as held by the learned trial court. It is also  to be seen that as against the  documentary  evidence of  continuous  regular deposit of  house  and water  tax of the disputed  house as  well as  its electricity   bills  by defendant no.1, there is  nothing on record to show that  Swami Nath  plaintiff  no.1  ever deposited the house and water tax,  and the  electricity bills and this fact again goes  to show that Swami Nath  never  dealt with the disputed house as its owner.The above rulings  do not  render  any help to the  appellants.

Learned counsel for the appellant also  referred to the  following rulings on the  point of  permissive  possession:

AIR 1979 Orissa 101(Surajbati Ram & another Vs. Dhani  Ram & others), AIR 1977 ALLD, 458 (Ram Prasad Pandey Vs. Jag Mohan Lal Shukla ), AIR 1998 CAL. 59 (Dunlop India Ltd. Vs.  T.K. Mukhopadhyay), 1980 ARC 502 (Sri Tej Bhan Madan Vs. II AdJ Allahabad & other), AIR 1974 PATNA   364 ( Jaikaran Singh  Vs. Ram Agarwalla & others), AIR 1986 BOMBAY 359 (M/S Quality  Cut Pieces & etc.  Vs. M/s Laxmi & Co.), 1996 (7) SCC 555 (Joginder Singh & another Vs. Jogindero (Smt) & others), AIR 1987 BOMBAY 142 and  AIR 1992 MP 303 (Gangaram Vs. The Municipal Counsel).

Learned counsel for the  appellant,  relying upon the   above rulings  on  permissive possession of a tenant  or licensee  and applicability of    Section 116 of the  Evidence Act to such  cases contended that  the defendant  no.1,  who was granted  licence to  reside in the house,  could not  claim title  by adverse possession and  he was barred from claiming title  from Swami Nath.

I have  carefully  gone through  these rulings also .  The legal  position as provided  under  Section 116 of the  Evidence Act  and discussed in the above rulings  is not disputed. But, the position  in the present case is that  there is no  direct  evidence on the point  that  Swami Nath  had permitted  the defendant no.1 to  reside in the disputed house as  a licensee, and  on the basis  of evidence the  position  is found to be just reverse, and so in  the absence of  any satisfactory evidence on the point to prove that   defendant no.1 started  to reside in the house  as a licensee,  the aforesaid rulings  do not render any  help to  the appellants' case.

The position,  in this  way,  is that  the learned  A.D.J. , therefore , rightly  held that  defendant no.1  had completed his title to the house  by adverse possession and the suit  filed by the  plaintiffs was barred by limitation . There is no  error in his findings on this point. I agree with his findings and confirm  the same.

No other  point was pressed before me by the  either party. The  appeal, in this way,  has got no force and is liable to be  dismissed with costs to the respondents.

The appeal is dismissed  with costs to the respondents. The Judgment and  decree dated  6.4.1981 passed by Sri   Parmeshwar, learned VI Addl. District  Judge,  Basti in original suit No. 27 of  1968,  Rangi Lal and others  Vs.  Ram Das and others, are  confirmed.

Dated   March       , 2005

MLK


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.