RAI SAHIB DR. GURDITIAMAL KAPUR versus MAHANT AMAR DAS CHELA MAHANT RAM SARAN AND ORS.

Citation: [1965] 3 S.C.R. 433 · Decided: 19-03-1965 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.N. WANCHOO, J.R. MUDHOLKAR, S.M. SIKRI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
0 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
RAI SAHIB DR. GURDITIAMAL KAPUR 
v. 
MAHANT AMAR DAS CHELA MAHANT RAM 
SARAN AND ORS. 
March 19, 1965 
[K. N. WANCHOO, J.R. MUDHOLKAR AND S. M. S11w, JJ.) 
Mverse possession-Doubtftul whether Akhara, or its 
Mahant 
was oc<:Upancy tenant-Forfeiture of tenancy-Right of Mahant's suc-
cessor to sue for possession, 
The appellant was the owner of the suit land. Alleging that the 
2nd respondent, who was the Mahant of an Akhara, was the occu-
pancy tenant and that he had allowed his lessee to dig it up and 
rendered it unfit for cultivation, the. appellant evicted the 2nd res-
pondent from a part of the land in 194-0, and from the rest of it in 
1943. In 1950, the 2nd respondent was removed from tbe office of 
Mahan!, in proceedings under s. 92, C.P.C., and in 1953, the 1st respon-
dent was appointed in his place. In 1957 the 1st respondent filed a 
•uit for possession ot the land, alleging that the Akhara itself was 
the occupancy tenant. The trial court decreed :the suit and the High 
<:ourt confirmed the decree. 
· 
In the appe"l to this Court, the appellant contended that the suit 
was barred by limitation. 
HELD: Upon the eviction of the 2nd respondent the occupancy 
right in the land merged in .the right of ownership of the appellant. 
Apart from it, the actual physical possession of the land having been 
continuously wi.n the appellant to the exclusion of the occupancy 
tenant, . whether it was the 1st respondent or the Akhara itself, for a 
period of more than 12 years before the institution of the suit, the 
occupancy right was extinguished. If the 2nd respondent reJ)Tesented 
the Akhara in the eviction proceeding the decrees therein would 
bind the 1st respondent as his successor. If the 2nd respondent.did not 
represent the Akhara, the possession of the appellant under those 
decrees would be adverse to the Akhara. The 2nd respondent as the 
Mahant, or the Receiver appointed by the Court in the s. 92 J)Toceed-
ings, could have filed a suit on behalf of the Akhara, and so, the 1st 
respondent's suit after 12 vears of adverse possession by the appel-
lant was barred. [ 436D"E; 438F-H] 
Sudaram Das v. Ram Kirpal, L.R. 77 I.A. 42 and Subbaiya v. 
Mustapha, L.R. 50 I.A. 295, applied 
Dwi;endra Narain Roy v. Joges Chandra De, A.I.R. 1924 Cir!, 600, 
referred to. 
CML APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 471 
of 
1963. 
. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and decree dated 
November 9. 1960 of the ·Punj:tb High Court in Regular Second 
Appeal No. 1627 of 1960. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1965] 3 s.c.it. 
S. V. Gupte, Solicitor General, B. K. Khanna, R. K. Garg, 
A 
D. P. Singh, S. C. Agarwal and M.K. Ramamurthi, for the appel-
lant. 
N.C. Chatterjee and M.S. Gupta, for respondent No. 1. 
P.K. Chatterjee and RH. Dhebar, for respondent No. 11. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Mudholkar, J. 'fhe short point which falls to be considered 
in this appeal by special leave from a judgment of the High Court 
of Punjab dismissing the appellant's appeal in limine is whether the 
suit for possession· instituted by the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 is 
within time. There are ten respondents to the appeal out of whom 
only two, the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 Amardas and respondent 
No. 11 Union of India are represented .. While the appeal is contest-
ed by the first respondent it is supported by the Union of India. 
The facts which are not disputed before us are briefly these:· 
The appellant has a share of 122! /143! in the land in suit. 
The occupancy tenant of this land is Akhara Nirbansar of Sultan-
wind Gate, Amritsar. The second respondent Ram Saran Das 
was Mahant of this Akhara till the year 1950 when he was removed 
by virtue of an order made by a civil court in a suit under s. 92 of 
the Code of Civil Procedure, confirmed in appeal on September 11, 
1950. On December. 29, 1953 respondent No. 1 was appointed as 
Mahant in place of respondent No. 2. 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
On September 15, 1939 the appellant instituted a suit in a 
revenue court under ss. 38 and 39 of the Punjab Tenancy Act 
(hereafter referred to as the Act) for possession of 141 kanals 8 
marlas of land on the ground that he had granted a sub-lease thereof 
for the manufacture of bricks to someone by utilising earth dug up 
from that Janet This, according to the appellant, was in contraven- · 
tion of the provisions of s. 39 of the Act and entitled him to eject 
respondent No. 2. The Revenue Court held that out of the lan

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