SRI MONOHAR DAS MOHANTA versus CHARU CHANDRA PAL AND OTHERS

Citation: [1955] 1 S.C.R. 1168 · Decided: 20-12-1954 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

1954 
H. N. Rishbud and 
lnder Singh 
v. 
1'he State ·of Delhi 
Jagannadhadas J. 
1954 
Decemher 20 
1168 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1955] 
against the order of the High Court refusing to grant 
stay of the proceedings then pen din o-, it is sufficient to 
dismiss this appeal with 
the 
obsen~'ation 
that it will 
be open 
to the 
appellants 
to raise 
the 
objections 
before the Special Judge. 
SRI MONOHAR DAS MOHANTA 
fl. 
CHARU CHANDRA PAL AND OTHERS. 
[MEHAR 
CHAND 
MAHAJAN C.J., BHAGWATI, 
JAGANNADHADAS, VENKATARAMA AYYAR and 
B. P. SINHA JJ.] 
Lost Grant-Presumption of-lVhen such presumption does or 
does not arise-Legality of lost grant of Niskar from Mohunt-Plead-
ing and proof-Findings of fact. 
A presumption of a lost grant arises in favour of a person who 
does not claim adversely to the o\vner but who on the other hand 
proves ancient and continued 
possession in 
assertion 
of 
a 
title 
derived from the owner without any challenge and such possession 
and assertion cannot be accounted for except by referring to a legal 
origin of the grant claimed. 
But the presumption of a lost grant is not an irrebuttable pre-
su1nption of la\V and the court cannot presume a 
grant 
where it 
is convinced of its non-existence 
by reason of a legal i1npediment, 
as where the presu1nption of a lost grant is claimed by a fluctuating 
body of persons. 
Si1nilarly a presun1ption of a lost grant 
cannot 
arise when there is no person capable of making such a gran.t or if 
the grant pleaded is illegal or beyond the powers of the granter. 
A presumption of a lost grant by way of 1\iskar cannot be in1-
puted to the Mohunt of an . .\sthal inasni.uch as he is legally incom-
petent to make any Niskar grant. 
When a defendant who denies the title of the plaintiff in res-
pect of any land, fails in that plea, he cannot 
fall back on the pre-
sumption of a lost grant from the very person 
whose title he has 
denied. 
Findings of fact arrived at by courts should not be \'ague. 
... 
\-
'( .. 
Attorney-General v. Simpson ([1901] 2 Ch. D. 671), Raja Braja 
\. 
Sunder Deb v. Mani Behara and others ([1951] S.C.R. 431), Barker 
v. Richardson ([1821] 4 B. & Al<l. 579), The Rochdale Canal Com-
• 
-
# 
' . -, 
'! 
-
j 
S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
1169 
pany v. Radcliffe ([1852] 18 Q.B. 287), and Palaniappa .Chetty v. 
Sreenath Devasikamony ([1917] L.R. 44 I.A. 147), referred to. 
CIVIL 
APPELLATE 
JuRISDICTION: 
CIVIL 
Appeal 
Nos. 109 to 115 of 1952. 
Appeals from the 
Judgment and 
Decree 
dated 
the 9th day of 
March 1950 of the High Court of Judi-
cature at Calcutta in 
Appeal from 
Appellate 
Decree 
Nos. 1841-1847 of 1945 arising out of the Decrees 
dated the 16th day of September 1944 of Munsiff 3rd 
Court, Burdwan. 
P. K. Chatterjee, for the appellant. 
S. C. Das Gupta, 
(Sukumar Chose, with him), for 
the respondents in 
Civil Appeals Nos. 109 to 
112 of 
1952 and respondents 1, 2(a), 3 and 4 in Civil Appeal 
No. 113 of 1952 and respondents 1 and 3 in Civil 
Ap-
peals Nos. 114 and 115 of 1952. 
1954. 
December 20. The Judgment of the 
Court 
was delivered by 
VENKATARAMA AYYAR J.-The 
appellant 
is 
the 
Mahant of a religious institution known as 
Rajgunj 
Asthal in Burdwan, 
and the suits out of 
which the 
present appeals arise, were 
instituted by him to 
re-
cover possession of various plots of land in the occu-
pation of the 
defendants, or in the alternative, 
for 
assessment of fair and equitable rent. 
It was alleged 
in the plaints that the suit lands 
were comprised in 
Mouza Nala forming part of the permanently 
settled 
estate of 
Burdwan, and were 
Mal lands assessed to 
revenue, and 
that 
more 
than 
200 years 
previously 
there had been a permanent 
Mokarrari grant of those 
lands by the 
Maharaja of 
Burdwan to the 
Rajguni 
Asthal; that in the record of rights published 
during 
the settlement in 
1931 they 
were erroneously 
des-
cribed as rent-free, and that on the strength of that 
entry the defendants 
were refusing to surrender 
pos-
session of the lands to 
the plaintiff. 
It was accord-
ingly prayed that a decree might be passed 
for eject-
ment of the 
defendants, or in 
the 
alternative, 
for 
assessment of a fair and equitable rent. 
1954 
Sri Monohar Du 
Mohanta 
v. 
Charu Chandra 
Pal and Others 
1954 
:Sri Monohar Das 
Mohar1ta 
v. 
-Charu Chandra 
Pal and Others 
V enkatarama 
4.l!J!ar J. 
1170 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1955] 
The defendants 
contested 
the suits; and pleaded 
that the lai1ds were not

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