SOMNATH BARMAN versus DR. S. P. RAJU & ANR.

Citation: [1970] 2 S.C.R. 869 · Decided: 16-10-1969 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.C. SHAH · Disposal: Dismissed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
F 
G 
H 
869 
SOMNATH BARMAN 
v. 
DR. S. P. RAJU & ANR. 
October 16, 1969 
[J. C. SHAH AND K. S. HEGDE, JJ.] 
Specific Relief Act (l of 1877), s. 9-Suit for possessitm, filed more 
than 6 months after dispossession-P/ainJiff's possession proved but not 
title-Whether plaintiff entitled to decree for possmsion. 
In a suit for possession of i.9unovable property filed in 1949, i• was 
found that the plaintiff had not established his title to the pl'opcrty, but 
it was pro1'ed that he was in pcsscssion from 1930 to 1945 and that the 
defendant trespassed on the property in 1946. 
On the question whether a decree could 
be 
passed in 
plaintiff's 
favour, 
HELD : Possessory title is a good title as against everybody other 
than the lawful owner. 
Therefore, in an action of ejectment against a 
wrong doer, plrior possession of the plaintiff is sufficient title even if the 
suit was not brought within 6 months of dispossession as required by s. 9 
of the Specific Relief Act, 1877. 
The wrongdoer 
(trespasser) 
cannot 
successfully resist the suit by showing that the title and right to possession 
are in a third person. 
[874 B-D] 
Ismail Arif! v. Mohamed Ghouse, I.L.R. 211 I.A. 99, applied. 
Narayana Row v. Dharmachar, 1.L.R. XXVI Mad. 514, Krislutarav 
Ya1hwant and Ors. v. Vasudev Apaji Ghotikar 
(deceased) 
by I rs. 
l.L.R. 8 Born. 371, UmMo Singh v. Ramji Das & Ors. 1.L.R. 36 All, 51, 
Waii ..thmad Khan & Ors. v. Aiudhia Kandu I.L.R. XIII All. 537, and 
Subodh Gopa/ Bose v. Province of Bifiar and Ors. A.LR. 1950 Pat. 
222, approved. 
Debi Churn Bo/do v. 
Issur Chunder Manjee, I.L.R. IX Cal. 
39, Ertaza Ho.ssein & Anr. v. Bany 
Mistry 
I.L.R. 
IX 
Cal. 
!30, 
Purmeshur Chowdhry & Ors. v .. Brijo Lal Chowdhry, I.L.R. XVII Cal. 
256 and Nis« Chand Gait<L and Ors. v, Kanchiram Bagani, I.L.R. XXVI 
Cal. 579, overruled. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2342 of 
1966 
Appeal from the judgment and decree dated October 8, 1963 
of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in C.C.C. Appeal No. 47 oi 
1959. 
H. R. Gokhale, K. R. Chaudhuri and G. Kaushalya, for the 
appellant. 
M. C. Chagla, R,. V. Pillai ·and Subodh Markandya, for res-
p<indent No. L 
M. C. Bhandare and K. Rajendra Chaudhuri, for respondent 
No. 2. 
870 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1970] 2 S.C.R. 
The Judgment of the Coun was delivered by 
Hegde, J. 
This appeal has been brought by the !st defendant 
in 0.S. No. 210 of 1958 on the file of the 1st Additional Judge, 
City Civil Court, Hyderabad. 
That was a suit brought by the 
1st responde11t-plaintiff for possession of the suit property. That 
suit was dismissed by the trial court but in appeal the High Court 
of Andhra Pradesh reversed the decree of the trial court and 
decreed the plaintiff's suit for possession. Thereupon this appeal 
has been brought after obtaining a certificate under An. 133 ( 1 )(a) 
of the Constitution. 
The subject matter of the suit is a piece of land in Himayat-
nagar measuring 2856 sq. yards. The plaintiff"s case is that he 
purchased this land from one Jamshecr Khan with other plots 
in the vicinity under two sale deeds marked Exhs. P-2 and P-3; 
thereafter he was in possession of the same. 
When he was in 
possession, the second defendant trespassed into the said property 
and took possession of the same, thereafter he illegally· sold_ the 
same to the 1st defendant. 
The defendants denied the plaint 
allegations. 
They denied that the plaintiff had any title to the 
suit property or that he was in possession of the same at any 
time. On the other hand they pleaded that the second defendant 
who had acquired title to the suit property by aaversc possession 
had sold the same to the I st defendant in the year 1946. 
The trial court came to the concrnsion that the plaintiff has 
not established his title to the suit property. 
It also held that 
the plaintiff has not satisfactorily proved that he was in possession 
of the suit property at any time. 
In view of th<:>~;:. findings it 
thought that it was not necessary to go into the defendants' plea of 
adverse possession. 
In the result it dismissed the plaintiff's suit. 
In appeal the High Court agreed with the trial court that the plain-
tiff has not proved his title to the suit prop.;:rly. It rejected the 
plea of the defendants that they have perfected their title to the 
suit property by adverse possession. But differing from the trial 
court it came to the conclusion that the plaintiff was put into 
possession of the su

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