HA MALBARI (DEAD) BY LRS. versus NASIRUDDIN PIRMOHMAD AND ORS.

Citation: [1997] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 398 · Decided: 30-09-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. MAJMUDAR, M. JAGANNADHA RAO · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
HA MALBARI (DEAD) BY LRS. 
v. 
NASIRUDDIN PIRMOHMAD AND ORS. 
SEPTEMBER 30, 1997 
B 
[S,B. MAJMUDAR AND M. JAGANNADHA RAO, JJ.] 
Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882 : Section 41. 
c 
Indian Succession Act, 1925 : Section 306. 
Indian Easements Act, 1882 : Section 59. 
License-Death of licensee during pendency of proceedings-Effect of 
-Initiation of proceedings under Section 41 of 1882 Act for recovery of 
property rights-Death of licensee during pendency of proceedings-High 
D Courts held that proceedings were not relating to personal cause of action--
Proceedings do not abate with the death of licensor-Appeal before Supr~me 
Court by legal heirs of licensee-Held no fault can be found with the view 
taken by the High Court-Once the license is put to an end, the right of 
reversion survives for the licensor and whoever intermeddles with the property 
E after the death of the /irer ee would be liable to answer the claim of the 
licensor_;_ Therefore it cannot be said that such a cause of action is personal 
against the licensee and dies with him. 
Chinnan v. Ranjithammal, AIR (1931) Mad. 216, held inapplicable. 
F 
M Ranganatham Pillai v. T. Govindarajulu Naidu, (1950) 2 MLJ. 280, 
disapproved. 
Hirendra Bhushan v. Purnachandra, (19~3) 52 CWN 843 and Mrs. 
Sakinbai v. Salebhai Hasana/i, AIR (1967) Bombay 9, approved. 
Q 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Special Leave Petition (C) No. 
H 
17918 of 1997. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 16.7.97 of the Gujarat High Court 
in C.R.A. No. 1231 of 1992. 
Yashank Adhyaru and Sanjay Kapur for the Petitioners. 
398 
HA MALBAR!. v. NASIRUDDJN PIRMOHMAD 
399 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners we are inclined to 
agree with the reasoning adopted by the High Court in the impugned order. 
Mr. Adhyaru, learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently contended 
A 
that on the death of the alleged licensee pending proceedings before the Trial 
Court the proceedings abated. For that purpose he strongly relied upon a B 
Division Bench Judgment of the Madras High Court in Chinan v. Ranjithammal, 
AIR ( 1931) Madras 216. In the said decision the Division Bench of the High 
Court has taken the view that a licence granted under Section 59 of the 
Easements Act is not annexed to property, it is not transferable or heritable 
and once the licensor parts with the property or the licensee dies, the licence C 
comes to an end. Strictly speaking this decision can be of no avail on the 
facts of the present case as the alleged licensee has died pending the 
proceedings under Section 41 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882 
(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). However, he sought better sustenance 
from a latter decision of the Madras High Court rendered by a learned Single 
Judge in the case of M. Ranganatham Pillai v. T. Govindarajulu Naidu, D 
(1950) 2 M.L.J. 280. The said decision, of course, is rendered with reference 
to the proceedings under Section 41 of the Act. In the said decision the 
learned Judge of the High Court Madras has taken the view that once 
summary proceedings are initiated against the alleged licensee by the licensor 
under Section 41 of the Act and if the licensee dies pending the proceedings, E 
his heirs cannot be proceeded against and the proceedings ·abate. 
The learned Judge for coming to the said conclusion has disagreed with the 
contrary view of the Calcutta High Court in Hinrendra Bhushan v. 
Puranchandra, (1948) 52 C.W.N. 843. In our view, the said decision of the 
learned Judge, with respect, runs counter to the provision of Section 306 of 
the Indian Succession Act which deals with only limited causes of action of F 
a personal nature which die with the person. When a licensor seeks possession 
from the alleged licensee though in a summary manner, he seeks restoration 
of the estate of immovable property which was permitted to be utilised by the 
licensee during the currency of the licence. Once the licence is put to an end, 
the right of reversion obviously survives for the licensor and whoever G 
intermeddles with the property after the death of the licensee would obviously 
be liable to answer the claim of the licensor and in these procet:dings it cannot 
be said that such a cause of action is personal against the licensee and dies 
with him. 
In our view, therefore, the decision of learned Single Judge of Madras H 
400 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A High C
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.