LexVIDYA DEVI@ VIDYA VATI(DEAD) versus PREM PRAKASH AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
VIDYA DEVI@ VIDYA VAT! (DEAD)
v.
PREM PRAKASH AND ORS.
MAY 10, 1995
[KULDIP SINGH, N. VENKATACHALA ANDS. SAGHIR
AHMAD, JJ.]
Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 Ss.55( 1), 185 r/w Schedule I-Suit by
co-bhumidar for partition resisted by setting up defence of title by adverse
C possession of entire property--He/d (per majority) , there being no period
of limitation for filing suit for partition, question of co-bhumidar acquiring
title by adverse possession can never arise.
Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 Ss.67(d}, 186(1), Explanatiott-Suit by
co-bhumidar for partition resisted by setting up defence of title by adverse
D possession of entire property-Whether raises question of title requiring refer-
ence to Civil Court-Held (per majority), No; plea raised solely to oust
jurisdiction of Revenue Court and hence untenable.
After the coming into force of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954
E ('Act'), a declaration was made that VD, DR and PP were co-bhumidars of
the suit land entitled to one-third share each. Subsequently, VD filed.a suit
for partition and separate possession of her share. While DR did not
object, PP contested the suit on the ground that he had perfected title in
respect of the entire property by adverse possession. Contenting that a
question of title was involved, he requested the Revenue Assistant to refer
F the issue to a Civil Court.
The Financial Commissioner, in revision, upheld the view of the
Revenue Assistant that the plea of adverse possession was raised only to
oust the jurisdiction of the Revenue Assistant and being untenable, the
G issue was not required to be referred to a Civil Court. While, PP's writ
petition was dismissed by a single Judge of the High Court, a Division
Bench allowed his Appeal and directed the Revenue Assistant to frame an
issue on the question of title and refer it to the Civil Court. VD then
appealed to this Court.
H
Allowing the Appeal, this Court
316
..
VIDYA DEVI v. PREM PRAKASH
317
HELD : 1.1. (Per majority) (Venkatachala J. for himself & Knldip A
Singh, J.). When no period of limitation is fixed for filing a suit for partition
by co-bhumidars against his other co- bhumidars in respect of a joint
holding, the question of other co-bhumidars acquiring his title to such
holding by adverse possession for over 12 years can never arise. (324-E)
(Per Saghir Ahmad, J. dissenting)
1.2. Merely because a period of limitation has not been prescribed
B
for a partition suit, would not mean that a plea of adverse possession
though raised bona fide would be untenable on account of the explanation
appended to S.186 (pp. 8-9) A co- owner, can under law, claim title by C
adverse possession against another co-owner. who can, of course, me
appropriate suit including suit for joint possession within time prescribed
by law. (328-G, 327-F]
Gaya Par~had Dikshit v. Nirmal Chander and Another, AIR (1984) SC
930; Ezaz Ali v. Special Manager, Court of Wards, AIR (1935) PC 53 =AIR D
(1947) PC 15; Maharajadhiraj of Burdhwan, Udaychand Mahatab Chand v.
Subhodh Gopal Bose and Others, AIR (1971) SC 376; P. Lakshmi Reddy v.
L. Lakshmi Reddy, AIR (1957) SC 314; Mohammad Baqar and Others v.
Naim-un-Nisa Bibi & Others, AIR (1956) SC 548; Karba/i Begum v. Mohd.
Sayeed, AIR (1981) SC 77; Coera v.Appuhamy, AIR (1914) PC 243 ; Mohd. E
Zain-ul-Abdin v. Syed Ahmad Mohiuddin, AIR (1990) SC 507; Rana Shea
Ambar Singh v. Allahabad Bank, AIR (1961) SC 1790 and Dr. Markby,
"Elements of Law" (Second Edition), referred to.
2.1. (Per majority) (Venkataehala, J. for himself & Kuldip Singh, J.):
Section 67(d) of the Act which provides for extinctjon of bhumidar's F
interest in a holding, did not enable PP to take the plea of title by adverse
possession in respect of the holding in a suit for partition by a co-
bhumidar. The explanation to sub-section (1) of S.186 of the Act came in
the way of PP raising the issue of his title which was solely to oust the
jurisdiction of the Revenue Court. (324-H, G]
G
(Per Saghir Ahmad, J.)
2.2. From a perusal of the pleadings, it emerges that the plea of
adverse possession had not been specifically raised setting out all the
requisite ingredients, and therefore, there was no occasion to frame any H
318
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP.1 S.C.R.
A issue on the question of title or refer it to the Civil Court. [329-C-D]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No 974 of
1980.
From the Judgment and Order dated 15.2.80Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.