Bhagwana Ram vs Trilok Chand and Another

Hon''ble Dr. Justice Vineet Kothari

The present second appeal has been filed by the plaintiff - appellant Bhagwana Ram s/o Rau Ram Jat aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 27.07.1995 of the First Appellate Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Division) & Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ratangarh, District Churu, allowing the defendants Trilok Chand s/o Thani Ram and Bhagwana Ram s/o Trilok Sharma''s Appeal No. 14/94 (38/92), reversing the findings on Issue No. 4 of the learned trial court of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, I Class, Ratangarh dated 10.05.1991, in the present injunction suit filed by the plaintiff - appellant Bhagwana Ram, namely Civil Suit No. 8/86 - Bhagwana Ram vs. Trilok Chand and Bhanwar Lal. The learned Appellate Court held that the Municipal Board, Sri Doongargarh had issued a Patta (Ex. A-1/A) duly registered dated 12.09.1980 in favour of the defendant No. 2 Bhanwar Lal s/o Trilok Chand, but the learned trial court has erred in holding that the defendants Trilok Chand and Bhanwar Lal have failed to establish the relationship of the landlord and tenant as claimed by them before the trial court and consequently the appeal of the owner/landlord Trilok Chand and Bhanwar Lal came to be allowed by the First Appellate Court on 27.07.1995. Being aggrieved by this, plaintiff Bhagwana Ram has filed the present Second Appeal u/s 100 CPC in this Court on 10.10.1995.

The said owner of the suit property - a plot of land, Bhanwar Lal had also filed separately an eviction suit against the present plaintiff - tenant No. 23/86, which came to be dismissed by the learned trial court on 25.01.1994 on the basis of the findings given by the learned trial court in the present injunction suit filed by Bhagwana Ram on Issue No. 4, against which the said plaintiff, respondent here, Trilok Chand and Bhanwar Lal filed an appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, Ratangarh, which is stated to be still pending. The learned trial court of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, I Class, Ratangarh, while dismissing the present suit, vide judgment and decree dated 10.05.1991, decided the issues Nos. 1, 2 and 3 against the plaintiff Bhagwana Ram, while deciding the issue No. 4 against the defendant Trilok Chand and Bhanwar Lal, which issue No. 4 was as to "whether the plaintiff Bhagwana Ram is a tenant of defendants since 04.05.1985 on monthly rent of Rs. 100/- per month and there is a relationship of landlord and tenant in the two parties or not ?" This issue was decided against the defendants Trilok Chand and Bhanwar Lal and consequently they filed an appeal before the First Appellate Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Division) & Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ratangarh, district Churu in Appeal No. 14/94 (38/92) - Trilok Chand and another vs. Bhagwana Ram, which came to be allowed by the impugned judgment dated 27.07.1995.

In the memo of present second appeal filed by the plaintiff, Bhagwana Ram, in para 4 of the present appeal, he has stated that being aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the learned trial court dated 10.05.1991, he had also preferred an appeal before the same Court bearing No. 23/1992 - Bhagwana Ram vs. Trilok Chand and another, which is stated to be still pending with the learned Additional District Judge, Ratangarh while the appeal filed by Trilok Chand and Bhanwar Lal No. 14/94 (38/92) came to be decided on 27.07.1995.

While admitting the present second appeal, a coordinate Bench of this Court framed the following two substantial questions of law for consideration by this Court on 05.02.1996 and also granted interim order in favour of the plaintiff staying the operation of judgment and decree dated 27.7.95 passed by the First Appellate Court till further orders in Appeal No. 14/94 (38/92).

(a) Whether against dismissal of the suit in toto the defendant can said to be an aggrieved person and he can be permitted to file an appeal as contemplated under Sec. 96 of CPC or in such a situation he can file a cross appeal as envisaged under O. 41 r. 22 of C.P.C. ?

(b) Whether the finding on issue No. 4 about relationship of landlord and tenant between defendants and the plaintiff recorded by the learned lower court is perverse and self-contradictory in view of the other finding recorded by it regarding pendency of suit No. 23/86 between the parties under Act No. 17 of 1950?

Mr. G.L. Khatri, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff - appellant, Bhagwana Ram submitted as under:

(i) That the First Appeal filed by the defendants Trilok Chand and Bhanwar Lal u/s 96 CPC was not maintainable, since the said appeal was merely against the adverse findings on Issue No. 4 against the defendants and not a decree passed against them and consequently no appeal could be filed. He relied upon following decisions in support of his contentions:

(1) Smt. Ganga Bai Vs. Vijay Kumar and Others,

(2) Budh Sen Vs. Sheel Chandra Agarwal and Others, and

(3) Banarsi Sah and Others Vs. Bhagwanlal Sah and Others,

(ii) That the defendants Trilok Chand and Bhanwar Lal utterly failed to establish the relationship of landlord and tenant and, therefore, the court below has erred in deciding the three issues Nos. 1, 2 and 3 against the plaintiff Bhagwana Ram, who was in long possession of the suit land - a plot of land, situated at Sri Doongargarh and the court below has wrongly refused injunction to the plaintiff - Bhagwana Ram vide its judgment and decree dated 10.05.1991. He also relied upon the report of the Court Commissioner - Ex. 3 in this regard, in which the defendants failed to point out their ownership of the plot of land in question.

(iii) That the "Patta" issued by the Municipal Board, Sri Doongargarh Ex. A-1/A in favour of the defendant No. 2 Bhanwar Lal s/o Trilok Chand was issued at the point of time, when his father Trilok Chand was the Chairman of the Municipal Board, Sri Doongargarh, District Churu and, therefore, the said Patta was illegal and also because the defendants did not belong to the Category of SC and ST Persons or Landless persons for whom the Rules of 1959, in which the present Patta was issued, could be so given to the defendants. He, therefore, submitted that the Appellate Court has erred in allowing the defendants'' appeal and the substantial questions of law framed above, deserve to be answered in favour of the plaintiff - appellant and the impugned judgment of the Appellate Court deserves to be set aside.

On the other hand, Mr. A.K. Rajvanshy, learned counsel appearing for the defendants Trilok Chand and Bhanwar Lal, submitted that the said Trilok Chand has died during the pendency of this litigation on 04.01.2005 and, therefore, his name be deleted from the array of respondents vide his Application under Inward No. 1641 dated 14.02.2006.

The said application under Order 22 Rule 2 CPC is allowed and the name of defendant No. 1 Trilok Chand is deleted from the array of respondents.

Mr. A.K. Rajvanshy further contended that the Patta issued in favour of the respondent No. 2 Bhanwar Lal s/o Trilok Chand has never been challenged by the plaintiff Bhagwana Ram in any Forum and the fact that the defendants Trilok Chand and Bhanwar Lal filed an injunction suit No. 23/86, later on renumbered as 19/97, was dismissed on 25.01.1994 only on the sole ground of adverse findings given on issue No. 4 by the learned trial court in the present suit of injunction filed by the plaintiff Bhagwana Ram, against which of-course, the First Appeal filed by the defendants, who are plaintiffs in that eviction suit No. 23/86 is still pending before the learned Additional District Judge, Ratangarh. He also submitted that the plaintiff Bhagwana Ram had also admittedly filed an appeal against the judgment and decree of the trial court dated 10.05.1991, namely, Civil Appeal No. 23/92 Trilok Chand and another vs. Bhagwana Ram, which is also admittedly pending with the learned Additional District Judge, Ratangarh.

Mr. A.K. Rajvanshy contended that as stated in Para 4 of the memo of the present second appeal by Bhagwana Ram that, the first appeal filed by the defendants on issue No. 4 cannot be held to be not maintainable and he submitted that such cross-appeal/cross-objections were maintainable under Order 41 Rule 22 CPC and, therefore, the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the plaintiff - appellant Mr. G.L. Khatri, are not applicable to the facts of the present case. He further submitted that admittedly, the plaintiff Bhagwana Ram had no title over the plot of land in question, whereas the defendants had a title through the Registered Patta issued in his favour vide Ex. A-1/A issued on 12.09.1980, which has never been challenged by the plaintiff Bhagwana Ram or anybody else in any court of law and, therefore, injunction claimed merely on the basis of the alleged possession could not be granted against the true owner i.e. the defendant No. 2 - Bhanwar Lal. He, therefore, submitted that the First Appeal was rightly allowed by the learned Appellate Court below and the present Second Appeal of the plaintiff, Bhagwana Ram, has no force and the same deserves to be dismissed answering the questions framed above against the appellant - plaintiff, Bhagwana Ram.

I have heard learned counsels at length, perused the material available on record and the judgments of the courts below.

Recently, the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Maria Margarida Sequeria Fernandes and Others Vs. Erasmo Jack de Sequeria (Dead) through L. Rs., , has dealt with the questions of possession and ownership in detail and describing the various types of possessions, dealt with under different laws like Easements Act, 1882, Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and Specific Relief Act, 1963, the Hon''ble Apex Court has laid down the principles in this regard as under:

The principles of law in this regard are crystallised as under:

(1) No one acquires title to the property if he or she was allowed to stay in the premises gratuitously. Even by long possession of years or decades such person would not acquire any right or interest in the said property.

(2) Caretaker, watchman or servant can never acquire interest in the property irrespective of his long possession. The caretaker or servant has to give possession forthwith on demand.

(3) The courts are not justified in protecting the possession of a caretaker, servant or any person who was allowed to live in the premises for some time either as a friend, relative, caretaker or as a servant.

(4) The protection of the court can only be granted or extended to the person who has valid, subsisting rent agreement, lease agreement or licence agreement in his favour.

(5) The caretaker or agent holds property of the principal only on behalf of the principal. He acquires no right or interest whatsoever for himself in such property irrespective of his long stay or possession.

Shri Mahabir Prasad Jain Vs. Shri Ganga Singh, ; Puran Singh and Others Vs. The State of Punjab, relied on Sham Lal Vs. Rajinder Kumar and Others, approved

Rame Gowda (D) by Lrs. Vs. M. Varadappa Naidu (D) by Lrs. and Another, ; Southern Roadways Ltd., Madurai, Represented by its Secretary Vs. S.M. Krishnan, ; Anima Mallick Vs. Ajoy Kumar Roy and Another, ; Sopan Sukhdeo Sable and Others Vs. Assistant Charity Commissioner and Others, referred to.

Deprecating the long possession held by a Care Taker or a person, who was merely given a permissive possession through the long channels of litigation and even for decades, while allowing the plaintiff''s appeal with exemplary cost of Rs. 50,000/- and mesne profits of Rs. 1,00,000/- per month for a period of three months in respect of a residential house situated in Goa, the Hon''ble Apex Court further held as under:

Possession is an incidence of ownership and can be transferred by the owner of an immovable property to another such as in a mortgage or lease. Possession is important when there are no title documents and other relevant records before the court, but, once the documents and records of title come before the court, it is the title which has to be looked at first and due weightage be given to it. Possession cannot be considered in vacuum.

A suit can be filed by the title-holder for recovery of possession or it can be one for ejectment of an ex-lessee or for mandatory injunction requiring a person to remove himself or it can be a suit u/s 6 of the Specific Relief Act to recover possession. A title suit for possession has two parts - first, adjudication of tile, and second, adjudication of possession. If the title dispute is removed and the title is established in one or the other party, then, in effect, it becomes a suit for ejectment. In an action for recovery of possession of immovable property, or for protecting possession thereof, upon the legal title to the property being established, the possession or occupation of the property by a person other than the holder of the legal title will be presumed to have been under and in subordination to the legal title. There is a presumption that possession of a person other than the owner, if at all it is to be called possession, is permissive on behalf of the title-holder.

In the present case, admittedly, the plaintiff Bhagwana Ram does not hold any title over the plot in question and, therefore, merely claim of long possession as against the true owner - defendant No. 2 Bhanwar Lal, who was duly issued Patta by Municipal Board, Sri Doongargarh, District Churu on 12.09.1980 vide Ex. A-1/A, which is a duly registered instrument in favour of the defendant No. 2., cannot have any over-riding effect. The identity of the land is not in dispute. The said Patta issued in favour of the defendant No. 2, Bhanwar Lal has never been challenged by the plaintiff or anybody else in any Forum or court of law. The fact that the defendants Trilok Chand (since deceased) and Bhanwar Lal have also filed another Suit No. 23/1986 for eviction of the present plaintiff Bhagwana Ram, which suit was unfortunately dismissed during the pendency of this litigation, arising out of the injunction suit filed by the plaintiff Bhagwana Ram which had no legal force, merely on the grounds of findings of the learned trial court on Issue No. 4 against the defendants Trilok Chand and Bhanwar Lal and against which an appeal filed by them is pending before the learned Additional District Judge, Ratangarh, further goes to show that the true owner is contesting for his rights even now. His failure to establish the relationship of landlord and tenant before the learned trial court, which finding this Court finds, as given by the trial court to be incorrect, as the learned trial court has proceeded on the basis of the report of the Commissioner Ex. 3 in which according to the learned trial court, the defendants did not mention anything about their ownership or the title before the Court Commissioner, there was no justification in arriving at the finding that the relationship of landlord and tenant was not so established. Further, even in the absence of written Rent Note and in view of the oral evidence of the defendants that the premises in question was let out to the plaintiff Bhagwana Ram at Rs. 100/- per month coupled with his ownership established with Ex. A-1/A - the Patta, a registered document, such relationship of landlord and tenant, even though oral, ought to have been believed by the learned trial court. There was no justification for the learned trial court to decide the Issue No. 4 against the defendants. Therefore, in the opinion of this Court, the learned First Appellate Court was perfectly justified and right in reversing those findings and holding in favour of the defendants in this regard.

The objection of the learned counsel for the appellant - plaintiff, Mr. G.L. Khatri that such first appeal filed by the defendants before the First Appellate Court was not maintainable, loses significance in view of the fact that plaintiff Bhagwana Ram himself had filed an appeal against the judgment and decree dated 10.05.1991, namely, Appeal No. 23/92 Bhagwana Ram vs. Trilok Chand and another, which is said to be still pending as stated in para 4 of the Memo of present Second Appeal. In fact, if such cross - appeals were pending in the same judgeship, they were required to be heard together and disposed of simultaneously, lest it could result into conflicting judgments, but this was for the concerned court to take care, who are even now advised to take care in future to decide different proceedings arising out of the same lis to avoid any such possible conflict.

Thus, in the considered opinion of this Court, the injunction suit filed by the plaintiff Bhagwana Ram was rightly dismissed by the learned trial court and to the extent of the Issue No. 4, the learned trial court had erred and, therefore, the First Appellate Court was justified in reversing those findings and allowing the appeal of the defendants. The substantial questions of law framed above, thus, deserve to be answered against the plaintiff - appellant Bhagwana Ram and in favour of the respondents - defendants Trilok Chand and Bhanwar Lal, they are accordingly so answered. The present second appeal of the appellant - plaintiff, Bhagwana Ram is dismissed with cost, of Rs. 5,000/- to be paid by him to defendant Bhanwar Lal within three months from today.