LexSONAWATI & ORS. versus SRI RAM & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
SONAWATI & ORS.
v.
SRI RAM & ANR.
September 21, 1967
[J. C. SHAH, S. M. SIKRI AND J. M. SHBLAT, JJ.J
617
U.P. ZamindaTi Abolition and Land Reforms Act .1 of 1951.
•. 20(b)-Pf!1'son recorded as occupant' in 1356 Fas!i to be adhivasi-
Requirements of section.
U.P, Land Reforms (Supplementary) Act 31 of 1952, & 3-Adhi-
. vasi rights under-Tresjiasser whether can claim to be in 'cuitivatory
c possession' within meaning of Section.
D
Practice-Dispute as to Tights in land-Magistrate in proceedings
under s, 145 Cr. P.C, attaching land and asking parties to go to clvit
court-Defendants in civil suit acquiring possession from criminal
court pursuant to decree of first · appellate court-High Cou.rt in
second appeal whether can grant decree for possession after allow·
ina amendment of plaint for that purpose.
The respondents purchased the land in dispute from the bhumi-
dhars thereof, but 'P' (predecessor-in-interest of the appellants) claim-
ed to be in possession of the land and a dispute was raised under
s. 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Magistrate attached
the land and relegated the parties to a suit. The respondents filed a
plaint seeking a declaration of their rights and removal of 'P's name
from the record of rights. The trial court after getting a finding from
E the Revenue Court granted a decree to 'the respondents. The first Ap-
pellate Court, however decided in favour of 'P' and. on the basis of
that finding 'P' got possession from the criminal court. The respon-
dents went in second appeal to the High Court which decided in their
favour and gave them a decree for possession of the land after. allow-
ing them to amend their plaint by adding a prayer for possession.
The appellants came to this Court and urged: (i) 'P' was recorded
as an 'occupant' in the khasra of 1356 Fasli and therefore under
F s. 20(b) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act 1 of
1951 he was an adhivasi, (ii) 'P' was recorded as In 'cultlvatory ~
session' of the land in 1359 Fasli and on that ground also he was aij
adhivasi; (iii) the High Court was bound by the findings of the first
Appellate Court that the appellant was an 'occupant' in 1356 Fasli
and in cultivatory possession in 1359 Fasli; (iv) A suit for possession
even against a trespasser could lie only in the Revenue Court and
G not in the Civil Court, and the High Court by allowing amendment
of the plaint in the second appeal could not assume to itself jurisdic-
tion which civil courts do not possess.
·
HELD: (i) The entry in the Khasra of 1356 Fasli on which the
appellants relied did not fulfil the requirements of s. 20(b) of Act 1
of 1951. 'P' was not shown in the entry as 'Kabiz' or 'Saih!' etc. There
was also strong evidence which was relied on by the Revenue Court
B but not considered by the first Appellate Court that the name of 'P'
was surreptitiously entered in the Khasra of 1356 F. The appellant's
case under s. 20(b) of the Abolition Act therefore failed. [621A·F)
Amba Pmad v. Abdul Noor Khan & Ors., [1964] 7 S.C.R. 800.
referred to.
--
618
BUPBEME OOUBT,BEl'OBTB
(1968] 1 B.o.B.
(ii) The appellants':ca~~·uitd!i;:'l§
1ol U.P. Act 31 of 1952 also A'
could not' be sustained. To· get the l;lenefit of 'the section it had to bEI
.established that P was in aCtual cultivatory· possession of the land
in 1359 F alld that fact J.iad."hot.he~n. ~b.ljsh'ed by direct evidence
of 1)ossession, nor was it establislied by the- entry relied '{)n by him.
A person who has rto' righ}, fo QCl'UPY 18Jld may rely upon his occu·
pation'against a third'person who-has no bett_er.tiUe, but jle·cannot
•
se~ up that. tight against ~fie ~wner• of.4he'" Uajd,:SectioD.•3 •conferred B-'
rights upon persol\l; in possession of land against the tenure ljolders,
it was 11ot· intended' ta·.-pu,t it' premium upon' forcible ·occupation of
land· by 'Iandfess citizens. Posses8ion of a pers<in in wrongful occupa-
tion could not be· deemed to be 'cultivatory' possession• within the'
'!l.eanj!Jg,~o~ the ~ection; _[()22lf-623Fl_, • ,
,., ';,.
"
Ram!Xri•hna v. Bl!agwan Baksh" Singh, "[1961] l!tt.J. ,301. • a~·
Proved
,,.
. t
•
'"-!
.•
n";
•
l-'1
<)
.
.
--
c
,Na1)h90, Mal· v.,1}1,ul.90 and Ors,, I.L.R, {l963] All 751,- disapprov-
,e~
,
... ..._. ...
,.
"'"
'
J' '
•
-'+·
ro-
• .,
\.
"'
r~ (iii) Tile' High Court wps not bo(,md in the present· case ,i>Y, the
findings.of the:first .i\'.ppell'lte Court as .the lattExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.