STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. versus BRIGADIER SUKHJIT SINGH

Citation: [1993] 3 S.C.R. 944 · Decided: 11-06-1993 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.M. PUNCHHI · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. 
v. 
BRIGADIER SUKHJIT SINGH 
.JUNE 11, 1993 
[M.M. PUNCHHI ANDS. C. AGRA WAL, J.J .] 
Constillltion of India, 1950: 
Article 13- Farman issued by a Ruler of an erstwhile Indian Swte-
Sovereign will could be expressed in any manner and it becomes binding as law. 
Transfer of Property Act, 
Title to property-Merger of States- · 
: Erstwhile Ruler of Indian 
-
State-Not enlistingpartic11larpropertywhile declaring his private properties-Biil 
><-
iss11ing a Farman that the property wo11ld vest with each succeeding heir 
D apparem-Ef{ect of-Title-Whether could be claimed by State. 
Easemems Act, 1882: 
Si:ctions 52, 60, 61 & 62-Licence-Paymem of licence fee not essemialfor 
subsistence of-Revocation of licence-Occupier State to vacate-Orders of 
E 
lower courts-confirmed. 
Limitation Act, 1963: 
Article 65-Adverse possession-Licensee continuing as such for 
F 
long-Permissive possession-Whether becomes hostile by long lapse of time ~o 
as to claim adverse possession. 
Specific Relief Act, 1963: 
G 
S. 39-Suit for eviction-Property occupied by State and claiming title 
thereof-Plaintiff descendent of erstwhile Ruler who i~s11ed Fannan-Property 
neither personal nor of State-To be succ.eeded by heir apparent-Mandatory 
Injunction issued by Courts below- Confirmed-State to vacate the premises. 
H 
The building in dispute viz. a double storeyed.building has been in the 
944 
-
-
~ 
,, .. 
-
/ 
STA TE OF PUN.TAB 1·. BRIG. SUKHJIT SINGH: 
945 
occupation of the State Public Works Department. The plaintiff-respondent 
filed a suit claiming that he was the owner of the building and that the 
possession by the State was permissive in character and in the nature of a 
licence, and even after he had terminated the same, the State had not vacated 
the building. He therefore sought mandatory injunction requiring the State 
to vacate the premises and to keep its hands off from the other properties in 
the complex known as Jallowkhana Complex owned and possessed by him. 
The State disputed the claim on the ground that since the erstwhile Ruler of 
Kapurthala State, the ancestor of plaintiff, did not enlist the Jallowkhana 
Complex as part of his private properties at the time of merger of States, the 
entire complex was owned by the State. 
The trial court partially decreed the suit holding that except the double 
storeyed building in occupation of the State, the remnants in the J allowkhana 
complex was owned and possessed by the plaintiff-respondent. It took the 
view that the State had become the owner of the said double storeyed building 
by lapse of time; that there was no licence since admittedly no licence fee had 
ever been paid. In respect of the other portions of the property, the trial court 
found that the State had the right of easement. 
Ct·oss appeals came to be filed before the District Court. The appeal of 
the State was dismissed and that of the plaintiff-respondent was allowed · 
resulting in the suit being decreed in entirety. The second appeals filed by the 
A 
B 
c 
D 
State were dismissed by the High Court. Hence these appeals by the State. 
E 
Dismissing the appeals, this court 
. HELD: 1. Jallowkhana complex is one integrated property. Whatever 
is composed thereof is Jallowkhana. There cannot be two owners to such 
F 
property. The property must remain with the heir-apparent. The State 
cannot partially be an heir-apparent. On the other hand when the plaintiff-
respondent terms the State as a licensee, it cannot be negatived on the mere 
plea that no licence fee was agreed to be paid. Payment oflicence fee is not an 
essential attribute for the subsistence of a licence. The mere fact that the 
licence is oflong duration dating back to the year 1925, as suggested by some 
G 
of the plaintitrs witnesses, or ofl947 as said by the witnesses of the State, is 
of no consequence. (952-H, 953-A,B) 
2. Permissive possession, however long, cannot by itself be said to have 
.become hostile by a "long lapse of time", more so, on property, the nature and 
H 
946 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1993] 3 S.C.R. 
A 
character of which is unique and singular, having attributes of being imper-
sonal. Such status of the propert~· rules out the objection regarding adverse 
possession for which even an issue was not claimed in the Courts below 
keeping apart the pleadings. ( 953-B-C) 
3.1. It is beyond doubtthatthe ruler of an Indian State was in the position 
B 
ofa sovereign, and his command was the law

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