MUSAMMAT MURTI DUSSADHIN AND OTHERS versus SURAJDEO SINGH AND OTHERS

Citation: [1965] 1 S.C.R. 20 · Decided: 11-08-1964 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. SUBBA RAO · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

\ ' " \ 
MUSAMMAT MURTI DUSSADHIN AND OTHERS 
A 
v. 
SURAJDEO SINGH AND OTHERS 
August 11, 1964 
(K. SUBBA RAo AND s. M. S1KR1 JJ.) 
Indian Limitation Act, 1908 (9 of 1908), Arts. 142, 144-Sull for 
Ejectment-PlaintiO's title admined but pos,.ssion as tenant claimed-
Whether Art. 142 or Art. 144 applies. 
B 
One M brought a suit in the Munsif's C'.<>Wt against a number of 
persons, including the appellants for a declamtion that certain land con-
stituted the bakslrat interest of the plaintiff, who had been and continued 
to be in possession and occupation thereof. 
In the alternative be prayed c 
for possession if the plaintiff ht\ deemed to have been dispossessed for a 
proceedings under s. 144 of the Code of Crirninal Procedure had cast a 
doubt on his title. 
This sµit followed the proceedings under s. 144 of 
the Code of Criminal Procedure which resulted in a decision agalns\ 
the plaintiff. 
The defendants did not deny the title of the plaintiff but 
asserted that the plaintiff gave- these lands to the defendants to cultivate 
them on balai over more than 2S years ago, and since then the defendants 
had been and were in peaceful cultivating po'.;session over the same and 
D 
had also acquired occupancy right• in them. 
The Munsif dismissed the 
suit upholding the pleas of defendants. 
The plaintiff appealed and suc-
ceded before the Appellate Court, which was of the view that the onus 
was on the defendants to prove that they were raiyats of the land and 
that they bad occupancy rights in these lands and that the defendants bad 
not been able to prove their case about settlement and possession. 
The 
High Court, on appeal by the defendants, held that having regard to 
E 
the facts and circumstances of this particular case, the burden waa on 
the defendants to show whether they have been in possession for 12 :r~ 
<>r more, and dismis..00 the appeal. 
On appeal by· special lcav~, 
HELD : On the facts of the case Art. 144 and not Art. 142 applied. 
If a defendant not only admits title of the plaintiff but also admits-
t hat he derived possession from the plaintiff as a tenant, the case must 
proceed on the defendant's plea, and for the purpose of deciding whet-
her Art. 142 or Art. 144 applied, it must be assumed that the plaln1ilf 
ha..-. not been dispossessed or has not discontinued his possession within 
the meaning of Art. 142, for neither the plaintiff nor the defendant alleges 
di!'JKl&scssion or discontinuation of possession. 
124F 
....... F] 
JaJdhari v. Rajmdra Singh, A.LR. 1958 Pat. 386. approved. 
The Official Receh•er of Eust Godavari v. (_'hava Goi•inda Raju, I.L.R. 
11~40] Mad. 9.13 and Relrnri I.al v. S11mlar Das. I.LR. (1935) 16 Lah. 
442. Jistingui~hcd. 
Kumhharn U1kxhmanna v. Tant:ir<ila Vl'11.l.:.n1rswar/11. ( 194849) L.R. 
76 I.A. 202 and Scturatnn,,1 Aiynr v. Venk,uacha/;1 Go1uiden, (1919) 
LR. 47 I.A. 76, referred to. 
Clv11. Art>1·.I.t.ATE JuRt~llt\TION : Civil Appeal No. 625 of 
196() 
AppeHI hy '!'Cci;il l:;ivc from the judgment and decree dale<l 
July 17. !95X. of 1hc Patna High Court, in A~peal from Appellate 
Decree No. 890 ,1[ I 954. 
F 
G 
11 
.. 
,. 
• 
f 
'-
,,. -'·\ 
MST. MURTI v. SURAJDEO (Sikri ]. ) 
21 
A 
B. C. Misra, for the appellants. 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
R. V. S. Mani, E. C. Agarwala and P. C. Agarwala, for res-
pondents Nos. l(a) to l(k) and l(m) to l(r). 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Sikri J. 
One Mohd. Mir Khan brought .a suit in the Court 
of the Munsif Aurangabad against a number: of persons for a 
declaration that 8 bighas of land under khata No. 22, situate at 
Mauza Gopalpur, Dist. Gaya, constituted the bakasht interest of 
the plaintiff, who had been in possession and occupation thereof. 
and he prayed in the .alternative "that if in the opinion of the Court 
the plaintiff be deemed to have been dispossessed from the suit land 
under s. 144 (Cr. P.C.), in that case, the plaintiff may be put in 
sir possession thereof on dispossession of the defendants and a 
decree for future mesne profits from the date of dispossession till 
the date of realisation, may also be passed in favour of the plaintiff." 
He alleged in the plaint that the said sir land had been in sir posses-
sion of the plaintiff and 9.81 acres (including the said 8 bighas) is 
recorded in the Record of Rights, i.e., Survey Khaitan, 
as-
the 
bakasht land of the plaintiff. He further alleged that he had sown 
seeds in two bighas in the month of A sadh 1353, when defendants 
2, 3 and 5 int

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