MAROTI versus TULSIRAM AND ANR

Citation: [1994] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 499 · Decided: 15-11-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, N. VENKATACHALA

Judgment (excerpt)

MAROTI 
"· 
TULSIRAM AND ANR 
NOVEMBER 15, 1994 
[K.RAMASWAMYANDN. VENKATACHALA,JJ.] 
A 
B 
Evidence Act, 1872-Section 116-Estoppel-Suit for possession-
Admission made by defendant in cross examination that he entered into suit 
property on rent as a tenant-Defendant admitted before Municipal 
authorities that he was tenant and trust was owner of property-He is 
estoppel from denying title of plaintiff trust. 
C 
The respondent as a Managing Trustee of a Trust filed civil suit for 
possession. The appellant contended that he purchased the property 
and he being the owner of the property cannot be ejected therefrom. It 
was also contended that ir. respect of the Trust property, if the 
character of the Trust or the nature of the Trust was in dispute, the D 
appropriate proceedings would lie before the authorities constituted 
under the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950. The suit was decreed, but, 
on appeal; that decree was set aside. The appellate Court had accepted 
that the suit did not lie as the dispute related to the property of the 
Trust. In the second appeal, the decree of the appellate Court was E 
reversed and that of the trial Court restored. 
The High Court recorded as a fact the admission made by the 
appellant in the cross examination that he entered into the suit 
property on rent as a tenant and he also made an admission before the 
Municipal authorities that he was the tenant and the Trust was the F 
owner of the property. This constitutes the admission made by the 
appellant. In view of that admission, the appellant is estopped from 
denying the title of the plaintiff Trust. The High Court also recorded 
the finding that preceding the appellant's entry into the possession as a 
tenant, the Trust was in possession of it for over 12 years and it was 
leasing the property to various tenants. The Trust was exercising its G 
right as an owner of the property. In that view it recorded a finding 
that the appellant had been in occupation of the suit property as a 
tenant and decreed the suit. 
This appeal by special leave has been filed against the judgment 
and decree of the High Court. The appellant sought to contend that in H 
499 
500 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1994) SUPP. S S.C.R. 
A 
view of the controversy, the Civil Court lacked jurisdiction to go into 
the question whether the properties are Trust properties, or not.. • 
B 
c 
D 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : The finding recorded by the High Court and the trial 
Court were tliat the appellant had entered into possession of the 
property as a tenant and he is estopped to deny the title of the Trust by 
operation of Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Therefore, 
his only character is whether he was in possession as a tenant or in his 
own right as its owner. His contention that he purchased the property 
and thereafter he became the owner cannot be gone into this appeal for 
the reason that he admitted in the cross examination that he was a 
tenant. The record of Municipal Authorities also denies him the right to 
set up his own independent title, even if at all the deal was validly 
executed, it does not bind the Trust. (501-H,.502-A) 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 441/80. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 11.9.1979 of the High Court of 
Bombay Nagpur Bench Nagpur in Second Appeal No. ?29/67. 
V .A. Bobde and A. K. Sanghi for the Appellant. 
E 
Uday U. Lalit and Rishi Kesh for the Respondents. 
F 
G 
H 
The following Order of the Court was delivered: 
Substitution allowed. 
This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment and decree of the 
Single Judge of the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur Bench in S.A. No. 
329 _of 1967 made or September 11, 1979. The respondent Tulsiram 
Jagannath Sajo, as a Managing Trustee of Hanuman Deosthan, New 
Shukrawari, Nagpur, laid C.S. No. 732 of 1961 in the Court of 4th Joint 
Civil Judge, Junior Division, Nagpur, for possession. The suit was decreed 
but, on appeal, that decree was set aside and in the second appeal, the 
decree of the appellate court was reversed and that of the trial court was 
restored. Th~s, this appeal by special leave . 
The facts found by the High Court were that one Matadin was the 
Managing Trustee till 1921 and on his . demise, his son Kanhaiyalal 
managed the suit property as the Trustee till 1950. Thereafter, the plaintiff 
MAROTI v. TULSIRAM 
501 
assumed the management of Trust as a Managing Trustee. The defendant A 
entered the suit property as

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