LexLALLU YESHWANT SINGH versus RAO JAGDISH SINGH & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
8
c
D
E
F
G
H
LALLU YESHW ANT SINGH
v.
RAO JAGDISH SINGH & ORS.
Nowmber 29, 1967
[J. c. SHAH AND s. M. SJKRI, JJ.]
Gwa/it>f Reve1111e Laws-Ryotwari Land-GG/rdakhilk<ir lenarlls de·
faulling in paymenl ·of rent-Landlord whether can eject !heni forcibly
witi1Qu1 process of law--QanoO'll Mal s. 326 and Qanoon Ryotwari ss.
82. 137, 163-Effect of.
..
.
Certain tenants of ryotwari land in Gwalior district filed a suit under
s. 326 of the Qanoon Mal alleging dispossession by the landlords and
praying for restoration of possession.
On behalf of the defendants· it
was urged that by not paying land revenue the plaintiffs' rights had been
extinguished under s. 82 of the Qanoon Ryotwari. The Revenue authori·
ties decreed the suit on the view that even when Jand revenue was not
paid the landlord could not take possession v.ithout recourse to a suit
undor s. 137 Qanoon Ryotwari. · The High Court_ however allowed the
landlords' petition under Art. 217 of the Constitution holding that it
was not obligatory on the landlord to resort to Court in order to eject
a defaulting lessee, and that in a proceeding under s. 163 of Qanoon
R_yotwari it was not snfficie·nt to determine the question of
de facto
posses.sion alone but it was also necessary to enquire as to \\'hethe-r this
possession was or was not wrong.
The appellant, V.'ho was one of the
tenants came to this Court.
Held : (i) Under s. 82(3) Qanoon Ryotwari, the right of a Khatedar
is extinguished if the khatedar keeps in arrears the land revenue of his
khata but there is no automatic extinguishment of his right because the
proviso to s. 137 of the Qanoon Ryo1wari enables the Collector to accept
arrears if the khatedar is a good payer (khush-dehanda) and there are
special reasons beyond his control for not paying land revenue.
The
proviso would become a dead Jetter if in
every case when
there are
arrears of land revenue the landlord could take possession forcibly with·
out trying to recover the land revenue under s. 137. [207 E-Gl
Further s. 163 of Qanoon Ryot/wari clearly provides for suits of the
nature described in s. 326 of Qanoon /\fa!.
Section 326 is ''ei'Y similar
to s. 9 of the Specific Relief Act 1877, and the words 'disturbed unlaw·
fully· in s. 326 mean "disturbed not in due course of law".
Otherwjse.
there is no reason why a shorter period of limitation and sun1mary pro-
cedure is provide.d in s. 326 \vhile s. 325 provides a longer period of three
ve.ars 'for a suit for possession. ·The word ·trespass' in s .. 326 would include
i·orcible entry and dispossession by the landlord. [207 G-208A]
(ii) Under s. 9 of the Specific Relief Act the question of title i., irrcle-
\'ant in a suit under that section. Section 326 Of Qanoon Jl.,fa/ read with
s. 163 of Qanoon Ryotwarl being similar to that section must l>o similarly
interpreted. [208B]
Mid11{1.pur .Zamindary Company Limited v. Naresh Narayan Roy, 51
I.A. 293, K. K. Verma v. Naraindas C. Malkani. I.L.R. [1954}
Born.
950, Yar Mo/Janunad v. Lakshmi Das, I.L.R. [1958) 2 All. 394, Wa/i
20 ·I
SUPB.lME COURT REPORTS
[ 1968] 2 S.C. R.
Ahmud Khan '· Ayodlaa K111rd11, (1891) l.L.R. 13 All. 537, State
of
A
West Bcngu/ v. /Jirendrr. Nath Bas1111ia, A.1.R. 11955) Cal. 601.
Hi//aya
Suhhaya Hegde v. Naraycmappl' Timmayc. ( 1911) 13 B.L.R. 1200, I. :lu
hin Raghushet \', A n11aji ParaJ!irom,
[ 1881)
I.L.R. 5 Born. 387.
Ba11du
v. Naba, [ 1890] I.LR. 15 Born. 238 aad Dadabhai Narsidas v. The S11b-
Col/ector of Broach, 7 Born. H. C. Rep. 82 ACJ, referred to.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION :
Civil Appeal No. 145 of
1965.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated
September 24, 1956 of Madhya Pradesh (Now Madhya Pradesh)
High Court at Gwalior in Civil Misc.
Application No. 91
of
1955.
B
N. S. !Jindra, P. W. Sahasrabudde and A. G. Ratnaryarkht, for
C
the appellant
Ramesh11·ar Nath and Mahinder Narain, for respondents Nos.
Nos. I to 3.
The Ju'1gn1cnt of the Court ''as delivered by
Sikri, J,
This appc:il by special leave is dir~ctcd against the
1udgment of the High Court of Madhya Bharat in Civil Miscel-
laneous Application No. 91 of 1955. read with Civil Miscella-
neous AJ?plication No. 92 of 1955. filed under Art. 227 of tile
Constitutton by Rao Jagdish Singh and others. By this ju'..!gmcnt
the High Court accepted the applicatiom and qu:ishcd the deci-
sion of the Board of Revenue and dismissed the claim of Lallu
Y eshwant Singh, soExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.