BHUBANESHWAR PRASAD NARAIN SINGH & ORS. versus SIDHESWAR MUKHERJEE & ORS.

Citation: [1971] 3 S.C.R. 639 · Decided: 02-02-1971 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.K. MITTER · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

63~ 
A 
BHUBANESHWAR PRASAD NARAIN SINGH & ORS. 
v. 
SIDHESWAR MUKHERJEE & ORS. 
B 
February 2, 1971 
[G. K. MITTER AND A. N. RAY, JJ.] 
Bilu1r Land Rcfonns Act, 1950, r. 6--Scope of-Effect on co-sharer'i 
posJ't:Jston. 
In a suit for partition of bakasht land a preliminary decNe was pass-
c 
ed. 
The defendants-appellants, claiming to be in actuar possession of 
the bakasht land, filecl a petition contending that the consequence of s. 6 
of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 19'50 (which came into force in the 
meanwhile) was to put an end to the proprietor's possession of the 
b.akasht land by causing them to vest in the State and simultaneously 
creating a tenancy in 
favour of the person in khas 
possession. 
thereof, and therefore, no final decree could be passed. The trial court 
accepted the contention and dismissed the plaintiff's application for pass-
D 
ing final decree. In appeal, the High Court set aside the order. 
In appeal to this Court, 
HELD : Even if the appellants were in actual khas possession with-
in the meaning of s. 2 (kl of the Act, it must be held that the plaintiff 
respondent, who was a co-sharer, was in constructive possession through 
the appellants, as, under the law, posslssion of one co-sharer is posses-
E 
sion of all co-shares. The appellants did not claim to be trespassers 
on the property neither did they claim any title to the lands adversely 
to "the respondent. . The deeming provision of s. ll inust, therefore, 
enure for the benefit of all. who in the eye of land would be regarded 
.as in actual possession. Therefore, the respondent had not Jost his •hare 
, 
in the bakasht lands and had a right to his share in them; though not 
<J 
as tenure-holcler or proprietor, but as a raiyat under the provisions of 
~t 
the Act. [645 E-GJ 
F 
P. L. Reddy v. L. L. Reddy, [!957) S .. C.R. 195. 202, followed. 
Surajnath Ahir v. Prithitnath Singh, [1963] 3 S.C.R. 290, Ram Ran 
Baijal Singh v. Behari Singh alias Bagandha Singh, [1964] 3 S.C.R .. 363, 
S. P. Shah v., B. N. Singh, [1969) 3 S.C.R. 9'08 and Mahant Sukhdeo Das 
v. Kashi Prasad, Tewari & Shrideo Misra v. Ramsewok Singh A.L.R. 37 
G 
Pat. 918, referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2588 of 
1966. 
Appeal from the judgment and decree dated January 14, 1964 
of the Patna High Court in First Appeal No. 572 of 1958. 
H 
D. Goburdhun and R. Goburdhun, for the appellants. 
A. N. Sirlha and P. K. Mukhe~jee, for respondent No.- 1. 
. ' 
640 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1971] 3 S.C.R. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Mitter, J. 
The only question involved in this appeal is, whe-
ther the direction of the Jligh Court that the partition suit launched 
in 1943 should be allowed to proceed in view of the provisions 
·Of s. 6 of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 which came into 
force on 25th September, 1950, is correct. 
The suit had a chequered c~reer. It was ~nstituted against a 
number of persons the main relief asked for being partition of 
four annas Milkiat interest in Touzi No. 702, Tappa Haveli, Par-
gana Maheshi, District Champaran, Bihar. 
The Subordinate 
Judge of Motihari made a preliminary decree· for partition declar-
ing the first respondent's share in the property as claimed by him. 
The High Court in appeal modified the decree reducing the plain-
tiff's share to Rs. 0-1-4 interest only. 
In further appeal to this 
Court the trial court's preliminary decree was upheld on 5th 
October 1953. 
In the meanwhile the Bihar Land Reforms Act 
of 1950 effecting far-reaching changes in the incidents of land 
tenure and land holdings had been passed. 
The first appellant 
made an application to the trial court in June 1958 praying that 
the proceedings for final decree be treated as having abated in 
view of the vesting of aH estates m land in tbi State of Bihar. 
'This was accepted by the Subordinate Judge by an order dated 
July 12, 1958. The High Court allowed the appeal with the 
direction above mentioned which the appellant~ now seek to have 
-set aside. 
The bone of contentiQn between the parties is the extensive 
'bakasht' lands in the aforesaid Mquza. The appellants cOifitend 
that under s. 6 (1) of the Act all ~h~s~ lands vested }n the State 
and came to be held by the persons m. "khas possession" thereof 
as raiyats u,nder the State. 
To appreciate the plea it is necessary 
to make a brief reference to some of the provisions of the Act. 
As is well known the object pf the Act was to cause transfer-
-ence to t

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