GURU AMARJIT SINGH versus RATTAN CHAND AND ORS.

Citation: [1993] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 523 · Decided: 12-08-1993 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

GURU AMARJIT SINGH 
v. 
RATTAN CHAND AND ORS. 
AUGUST 12, 1993 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND S. MOHAN, JJ.] 
Transfer of Property Act, 1882 : Section 111 (g). Lease--F01feiture 
of-Condition precedent for-What are. 
Jamabandi Record-Evidentiary value of-What is. 
The appellant filed a suit for ejectment of the respondents from the 
A 
B 
c 
suit land. His case was that the property in question was leased by his 
grand-father to the predecessor interest of the respondents under a lease 
cleed dated October 20, 1905 on an yearly rent of Rs. 2. and since the 
respondents sold the property to third parties claiming themselves as 
D 
owners of the properties, they had forfeited their lease under Section 
lll(g) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. 
The respondents contested the suit stating that: (i) they had no 
knowledge of execution of any lease deed by their predecessor-in-interest; 
(ii) the land was in possession and enjoyment of their predecessor as 
owners even prior to 1905; (iii) they had not paid any rent to the appellant. 
Even if the tenancy was proved, being occupancy tenants they became 
owners by operation of Punjab Occupancy Tenants (Vesting of Property 
Right) Act, 1985 and the Punjab Village Common Lands Act,. 1961; and 
• 
(iv) they had become owners by adverse possession. 
E 
F 
The Trial Court dismissed the suit holding that (i) respondents' 
predecessor-in-interest had executed a lease-deed in favour of appellants' 
predecessor-in-interest (ii) there was no relationship of landlord and 
tenants because there was no proof of payment of rent; (iii) the respon-
dents were holding the land as tresspassers and they became owners by G 
adverse possession. 
On appeal, the first appellate court decreed the suit holding that (i) 
· there was proof of payment of rent of Rs. 2 per year till 1966-67 as per 
Jamabandi Record; (ii) the respondents were continuing as tenants at 
sufference on permissive possession and there was no hosti.Ie assertion of H 
523 
·" 
524 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1993] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 
A title to the knowledge of the appellant and so the question of adverse 
possession did not arise. 
The High Court set aside the decree of the appellate court and 
confirmed that of the trial court. 
B 
On appeal, in this Court, it was contended on behalf of the appellant 
that the respondents successively denied the title firstly, by claiming title 
in themselves, secondly renouncing their character as tenants and selling 
the lands to third parties and thirdly, setting up adverse possession, each 
of which constituted clearly and separately forfeiture of lease under clause 
C (2) of Section lll(g) of the Act. 
D 
Dismissing the appeal, this <.;ourt 
HELD : 1. The High Court is correct in its view that the plea of 
forfeiture is not available to tl1e appellant. [528-H] 
l.l. There is no conv~nant in the deed that the respondents have no 
right to sell the property in their occupation and enjoyment or on breach 
thereof right of re-entry was provided for. Therefore, the first clause of 
Section 111 (g) has no application and the foundation of the plaintill's case 
in his pleading of forfeiture by sale ofland to defendants had fallen to the 
E gro"nd, as held by the High Court. [529-B-C] 
2. Under clause (2) of Section lll(g) disclaimer by denial of the 
landlord's title or setting up a title in himself or third party is a ground 
for forfeiture. There must be a renunciation of the character of the lessee 
as such either by setting up a title in himself or in other person or 
F unequivocal plea of adverse possession. But the repudiation must be clear 
and unequivocal and anterior to the issuance of the notice determining the 
lease under Section lll(g) of the Act and the lessor must be put to notice 
of dete~mination of the lease. The disclaimer . my be in the pleading 
anterior to the suit in question or in any other documents, but directly 
G relata.ble to the knowledge of the lessor. An incident~! statement per se does 
not operate forfeiture. [529-E-G] 
2.1. In the instant case, from the copy of the alleged lease, it is clear 
that predecessors of the respondents had already constructed buildings 
and they were in possession and enjoyment of the land and the buildings 
H and they continued to enjoy the property. The statutory operation of law 
AMARJITSINGH 1·.RATTANCHAND 
525 
conferring title was pleaded. The respondents were not parties to the lease A 
deed and they had no knowledge of it. There is no proof,

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