RAM RAN BIJAI SINGH AND OTHERS versus BEHARI SINGH ALIAS BAGANDHA SINGH

Citation: [1964] 3 S.C.R. 363 · Decided: 25-04-1963 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

3 S.C.R. 
SUPRE~E COURT REPORTS 
363 
We did not hear the learned counsel on the 
merits of the case under s. 504 of the Code and 
accept the finding of the court• below. 
In view 'of the considerations mentioned, no 
interference is possible with the acquittal of the 
respondent No. 2 on merits. It is, therefore, not 
necessary to decide the first question raised for the 
appellant. 
We accordingly dismiss the appeal. 
RAM RAN BIJAI SINGH AND OTHERS 
v. 
BEHAR! SINGH ALIAS BAGANDHA SINGH 
(P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, K. N. WANCHOO, 
K. C. DAS GUPTA, J.C. SHAH and 
N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR JJ.) 
Land Reform•-LandR 
mortgaged-After 
redomption 
posse•sion soWJht but re.fused by-Per.<onB in poBseBBion vacate-
Olaim of occupancy right-Right by adverse possession-Property 
vesting in state-OonBtruction 
of Statute-Suit lands if in 
"khaB poBsession"-Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 (ZXX of 
1950), ... 2. (k), 3 (1), 4,6-lndian Limitation Act, 1908 (IX 
of 1908), art. 144. 
The appellants' ancestors had executed a registered rehan 
bond of the suit land along with other lands. 
In 1941 the 
appellants paid off the amount due 
on the rehan bond and 
entered satisfaction on the bond. On the redemption of the 
bond the appellants sought to get possession of the suit land. 
These lands were in the possession of Respondents 1 and 2 
who refused to surrender possession claiming title on the basis 
9f their being entitled to occupancy rights in the lands, 
J96J 
BceA'h" lAl 
•• 
St•I• of U. P. 
R•tliubar D~1ol /, 
Jiii 
J;ril ZS. 
1963 
Ram R•1i 'Bi)ai ,iingh 
.•. 
bihari Sirtgll Afiu 
.B0:gontl~B \'ingh 
36!l, SUPRENIE COURT RBPORTS [1964] VOL. 
, 
The appellants then filed a suit alleging that the suit 
lands were uraiti lands in regard to which they were mtJlih, 
that respondents I and 2 were trespl"ers who had no occupancy 
rights and 
]>rayed 
for 
declaration of title, recovery of 
possession and 
mesne profits. Apart from their claim that 
they were raiyati tenants entitled to occupancy rights respon-
dents 1 and 2 contended that the suit was~barred by limitation 
by reason of adverse possession. 
The Trial Court found all the substantial issues in favour 
of the present appellants, rejected the plea of adverse possession 
and limitation raised by the· respondents and decreed the 
suit as prayed for. 
Thereupon the 
present respondents 
filed an appeal before the High 
Court. While the appeal, 
was pending the nihar Land Reforms Act, 1950, came into 
force. 
Section 3 of this Act p ovided for 
the vesting of the 
estates or tenures of proprietors in the State. Section 6 
however contained certain savings. 
When the appeal came 
for hearing in 1957 the respondents contended that by reason of 
the Government Notification in 1955 the suit lands had vested 
in the State under s. 3 of the Act and since the suit was in 
substance one for ejectment based on the title of the present 
appellants and the appellants having lo•t their title by reason 
of the vesting the appeal should be dismissed. The High 
Court found that the present a ppeliants were entitled to get a 
declaration of title and to get mesne profits up to the end uf 
December, 
195~. But the suit lands having vested in the 
State the decree for possessii>n given in favour of the appellants 
by the trial court was set aside. The present appeal is against 
the decree of the High Court setting aside the decree for 
possession passed by the trial court filed with a certilicate 
granted by the High Court. 
On behalf of the appellants it was 
contended before 
this Court that in view of the concurrent findings by the 
courts below that the lands were the uraiti land of the appel· 
!ants they would not vest in the State because of the saving 
in s. 6 of the Act. It was their ca!C that they should i>e 
deemed to have been in "khas possession" of the lands under 
s. 6 (1) (c). Relying on the Full Bench deci~lon of the ~alna 
High Court in Malianth Sukhd<a DatJ v. Ka•h• Pr"""'1 f'twar,, 
A.I.R. 1958 Pat. 630, they contended that tho 
e~prc11ion 
"khas possession" 
had to be understoo J a1i meaning 
11.ot 
merely actual physical possession as defined in s. 2. (k) ?f 
the Act but also cases where a person 
was constructively in 
possession 
the physical possession being in some other who 
held the property derivatively from him or in trust for him 
3 s.c.R.. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
365 
or on his behalf or with his permission-express or implied. 
Relying on a decision of the Allahabad High 

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