Tehal Singh vs Mehar Singh and Others

D.K. Mahajan, J.—This order will dispose of Regular Second Appeal No. 657 of 1.057 and Regular Second Appeal No. 934 of 1957. They are cross-appeals and arise out of the same judgment.

The facts giving rise to these appeals are as follows: Tehal Singh Plaintiff exchanged land measuring 20 Bighas 16 Biswas with the Defendants Mehar Singh and others, Defendants 1 to 8, and in lieu thereof got 18 Bighas and 4 Biswas. This happened prior to the year 1031. However, the revenue authorities refused to sanction the mutation of exchange, with the result that the parties to the exchange were recorded owners of their respective lands but In fact, the possession had passed over to the exchangees in either case. The exchangees were recorded as tenants of the land, of which, In fact, they should have been recorded as the owners. It is common ground that Defendants 1 to 8 obtained more land than they were entitled to under the exchange, that is, an area covering 3 Bighas and 9 Biswas (Sic). They continued to remain in possession of the same for a period of more than 12 years. The land which had been obtained in exchange by the Plaintiff was acquired by the Government and compensation thereof paid to the Defendants, because they were recorded in the revenue papers as the owners. This led to a suit by the Plaintiff for possession of 24 Bighas 5 Biswas of land which ho had taken from the Defendants in exchange and which the Defendants had parted in favour of the Plaintiff. This suit was dismissed by the trial Court as barred by the lime. Against this decision an appeal was taken by the Plaintiff and at the stage of appeal the parties agreed that die Plaintiff be permitted to withdraw the suit with the liberty to bring a fresh suit for the recovery of the compensation amount that the Defendants had received on the acquisition of the land and for possession oft, 3|Bighas and 9 Biswas of land which was in excess and it was further staled that it will be open to Defendants to raise such pleas as they are advised in case a fresh suit is flied. The present suit was accordingly filed on the 15th of February, 1950 and was for the recovery of Rs. 1,812/4/- on account of compensation paid, by the Government and for possession of 3 Bighas 9 Biswas the excess land taken possession of by the Defendants as already referred to above. The Defendants raised the pleas of limitation and adverse possession. The trial Court dismissed the suit with regard to compensation and decreed the suit with regard to the excess area Against this decision, both the parties appealed. The Plaintiff appealed against the decision with regard to the compensation and the Defendants appealed with regard to the decision against the excess urea measuring 3 Bighas 9 Biswas Hie lower appellate Court allowed both these appeals, with the result that the Plaintiffs'' suit was decreed with regard to the compensation and the Defendant''s appeal was allowed with regard to land measuring 3 Bighas 9 Biswas, the excess area. It is against this decision that the present appeals have been preferred by both the parties.

Taking up the Defendant''s appeal first, the only question raised is that (lie correct article to be applied is Article 17 and not 62 as was clone by the trial Court. The lower appellate Court has applied Article 62 Articles 17 and 18 are in these terms:

Description of Period of Time from which suit Limitation period begins to run. * * * 17. Against Government One year The date of deter- for compensation for mining the am- land acquired for ount of the com- public purposes pensation. * * *

For money payable Three When the money by the Defendant years is received. to the Plaintiff for money received by the Defendant for the Plaintiff''s use.

It will be apparent from plain reading of these articles that the lower Appellate Court was right in applying Article 62. Indian Limitation Act, 1908.

The learned Counsel for the dependences contended that the claim of the Plaintiff could only be against the State but I am unable to agree with this contention. The State was only obliged to recognise the person recorded in the revenue records as the true owner to whom the compensation was payable and was actually paid. The disputed question of title inter se the parties with regard to the acquired land could either be settled by proper proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, if the Collector was so minded, or by a suit, as has been done in the present case. In this view of the matter, there is no force in the appeal Bled by the Defendants.

So tar as the appeal filed by the Plaintiff is concerned, the contention advanced by Mr. Sarin, learned Counsel for the Plaintiff Appellant, is that the Defendants are recorded as tenants of the land which they had taken in excess at the time of exchange and thus they do not acquire title to it by adverse possession. This plea has not prevailed with the lower Appellate Court on the short ground that the possession of the land by the Defendants is traceable to the exchange and not to a contract, whereby relation of landlord and tenant was created. Moreover, it is well known that the revenue authorities, when they find a person in possession who is not an owner, record him as a tenant, but the fact remains that Defendants 1-8 obtained possession of the land by reason of the exchange and in no other capacity. Moreover, if this argument is accepted, the Plaintiff will not be entitled to the compensation, because so far as he is concerned the land of which he claimed compensation, he is recorded as a tenant and Defendants 1-8 are recorded as the owners. That being so, I am of the view that the Court below was Justified in holding that the Plaintiff''s suit with regard to 3 Bighas ind 9 Biswas was barred by time as he had been out of the possession of the land for more than 12 years.

For the reasons given above, both these appeals fail and are dismissed, but there will be no order as to costs In either of them.