LexSURAJNATH AHIR AND OTHERS versus PRITHINATH SINGH AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
1962 Rojinder Knmar v. Stale 1f Punjab D<DGuptaJ, 1962 May4. 290 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1963] establish the prosecution case that Jagdish after knowing on the January 5, 1961 .. thn,t an offence had been committed by the murder of Tonny caused some evidence of the commission of that offence to disappear with the intention of screening the offender from legal punishment. He has there. fore been ril!htly convicted under s. 204 of the Indian Penal Code 11.nd the sentence pase9d on him is proper. The appeal is accordiugly dismissed. Appeal dismissed. -- SURAJNATH AHIR AND OTHERS v. PRITHINATH SINGH AND OTHERS (K. C. DAS GUPTA and RAGHUBAR DAYAL, JJ.) Land Reform-Suit for recovery of possession after rt· '<' liemption of mortgage-Limitation-Vesting of e.<tates in th• State-Subsisting title to possession, if confer• right l-0 recover posses1ion-Bihar Lana Reforms Act, 1950 (Bih•r XXX of 1950), ss. 2(k) 3(1), 4(a), 4(/), 6(1) (a) (b), (c). The plaintiff-respondents sued the appellants for re- covery of possession of the lands in dispute. The appdlants had ent<red into possession of the lands on the strength of a mortgage d,eed. The mortgagors executed another mortgage with respect to their milkiat -interest in favour of certain persons. The plaintiff.respondents bought the milkiat rights shares together with the ka•ht lands from the mortgagors · and entered into posci:ession of the milki'lt property and sub .. sequently redeemed the mortgage deeds in 1943. The appel- lants however did not make over pos!les!!ion of the lands in dispute after the mort~ages had been redeemed. The trial court found that the plaintiff·re<pondents had no subsisting title to the lands and that the suit was barred by adverse possession and limitati9n. The High Court, on appeal filed by the plaintiff-respondents, allowed the appeal on the • • .. ._, 3 S.C.R. ::,UPREM . .I!.: UOURT REPORTS 2.Jl ~round that the defendant-a.pp·Jlants were in possession only as mortgagees and that after the redemption of the mortgage they had no right to continue in possession. The appellants than appealed to the Supreme Court by certificate granted by the High Court. Apart from the ques- tions of estoppel and limi1atioQ. by aoverse possession the main point which was raised in the appeal was that the plaintiff-res- pondent had no 1ubsisting title to evict the appellant in view of the provisions of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950. Hela, that the suit was instituted within twelve years of the redemptirm of the mortgage deed and was not there- fore barred by limitation. Section 4 of the Act vests in the State all the interests of the proprietor or tenure-holder, including the right to recover posseision from the trespasser, except those interests which are expressly sav1~d by the Act. Since no mortgage subsisted on the date d the vesting in the State the respon- dent could not take advantage of s.6(1) \c) oftheAct (as amended by Act XVI of 1959). The mere fact that a proprietor had a subsisting tit!~ to possession over certain land on the date of vesting would not make that land under his 'Khas Possession'. The res- pondents lost their right to recover possession from the appellants even if they were trespassers, on their estate vest- ing in the State. Brijnandan Singh v. Jamuna Prasad A. I. R. 1958 Pat. 589, Haji Sk. Subhan v. Madhorao [1962] Supp. l S.C.R. 123. CIVIL APPELLA'I'E JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 533 of 1960. Appeal from th1~ judgment and decree dated January 28, 1959, of the Patna High Conrt, in Appeal from Original Decree No. 143 of 19i8. B. K. Saran and J(. L. Mehta, for the appel- lants. R. K. Garg, D. P. Singh, S. 0. Agarwal and M. K. Ramamurthi, :t'or the respondents. 1962 May 4. Tho Judgment of the Court was delivered by 1962 S urajnath A hir •• Prithinath Singh Suraj'l.ath A.ltir v, l"riehinath Sin:h 292 SUPREM:JTI COURT REPORTS [1963] RAGHUB.AR DAYAL, J.-This appeal, on a certi· ficate granted by the High Court of Judicature at Patna, arises in the following circumstances: The plaintiffs-respondents sued the appellants R"1hui•r D~ al J. · for the recovery of possession of the disputed lands and mesne profits as the family of the defendants did not have any raiyat interest in the disputed lands except rehan interest under the rehan deed dated July ;;, 1906, and that subsequent to the redemption of that deed, they had no right to remain in pos
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.