BALESHWAR TEWARI (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ORS. versus SHEO JATAN TIWARY AND ORS.

Citation: [1997] 3 S.C.R. 140 · Decided: 20-03-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, S. SAGHIR AHMAD · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
BALESHWAR TEWARI (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ORS. 
B 
v. 
SHEO JATAN TIWARY AND ORS. 
MARCH 20, 1997 
[K. RAMASWAMY ANDS. SAGHIR AHMAD, JJ.] 
Bihar Land Refonns Act, 1950/Bihar Land Refonns Rules, 1951 : ss. 
2(k), 6 and 35/Rule 7E(3}--"Khas possession''-lntennediary selling in 1957 
C the land in possessio11 of lessee-Purchaser fili11g suit for declaration of 
title-Te11ant claiming to be in possessio11 as lessee since 1925-Suit dis-
missed-Appellate court decreed the suit holding that entries for 1952-69 
showed purchaser in possessio11 a11d intennediary who must be in actual 
possession-17zough the inclusive definition in s.6( 1)( a) of the Act would also 
include yearly lease, but it indicates that possession should always be retained 
D by the intcnnediary and the tenant must have no security of his tenancy 
right-But in the instant case the tenant remained continuously in possession 
of the land right from 1925, though possession .was taken in execution of 
decree in 1979 and the necessary animus possidendi was absent-Creation of 
record is a camouflage to def eat just and legal right or claim or interest of the 
E raiyat, the tiller of the soil on whom the Act confers title to the land he tills--ft 
is the duty of person claimii1g through an intennediary to establish by u11e-
quivocal evidence that the intennediary retained his right as such in land but 
that has not been done-Judgme11t of High Court and subordinate Judge are 
set aside and decree passed by trial court is restored-Purchaser would restitute 
possession to the , .1iyat. 
F 
Gurcharan Singh v. Kamla Singh & Ors., [1976] 2 SCC 152; Ramesh 
Bejoy Shanna v. Pashupati Rai & Ors., [1979] 4 SCC 27; Labanya Bala Devi 
(Smt.) v. State of Bihar, Patna Secreta1iat, Pama & Anr., [1994] Supp. 3 SCC 
725 and Brighu Nath Sahay Singh & Ors. v. Md. Khalibur Rahmanh & Ors., 
G [19951 s sec 687, relied on. 
CIVIL APPELLATE.JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2533 of 
1980. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 27.4.79 of the Patna High Court 
H in S.A. No. 326 of 1978. 
140 
BALESHWAR TEWARI v. SJ. TIWARI 
141 
Ranjit Kumar and Ms. Binu Tamta for the Appellants. 
A 
B.B. Singh for the Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the single B 
Judge of the High Court of Patna, made on April 27, 1979 made in S.A. 
No. 326/1978 dismissing the appeal in limine. 
The respondent-plaintiff laid the suit for declaration of title to 3 
bighas and six kathas of land bearing Plot No. 235 and 243 in Khata No. 
952 situated in Mauza Nainijore Pachhim Diara, Police Station Brahmpore, C 
District Bhojpur. 
The admitted position is that the respondent had purchased the land 
on May 23, 1957 for a sum of Rs. 82.2 annas from the Raja Dumraom Raj. 
Proceedings under Section 145 of Cr.P.C. were initiated in which it was 
held that the appellant was found in possession of the land. Consequent D 
thereto, the above declaratory suit came to be filed by the respondent. It 
is the case of the appellant that he has been in possession of the land as a 
lessee since the year 1925. The trial Court accepted his contention and 
recorded a finding as under : 
"These own documents of the Dumraon Raj clearly show that the 
defendant has been in possession over the suit land as a raiyat 
since 1925. The defendant has also filed the original Khatiswani of 
E 
the year 1350 fasli prepared by Dumraon Raj which also finds the 
name of defendant's ancestor over the suit land. Ex. C is the 
Jamabandi Register of the Dumraon Raj which also has the name F 
of defendant's ancestor over the suit Khata No. 91. Thus, the above 
documents of the defendant clearly prove that the suit land was 
never the proprietor's Zeerat land and was never in Khas posses-
sion of Dumraon Raj. Rather these documents show that the 
Defendant has been in possession of the suit land as a raiyat." 
G 
On that basis, the suit was dismissed. On appeal, the Subordinate 
Judge held that the entries for the year 1952-69 show that the respondent 
was in possession of the land and, therefore, Raja Dumraon Raj had leased 
out the land to the appellant on year to year basis and thereby in the 
enquiry under Rule 7-E(iii) of the Bihar Land Reforms Rules, 1951 and H 
142 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1997] 3 S.C.R. 
A Section 35 of the Bihar Land Reforms Act (for short, the "Act"), no suit 
could be brought in any civil Court in respect of the order passed there-
under. Thereby, it is s

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.