Sheodhari Rai And Ors. vs Suraj Prasad Singh And Ors.

Rewritten Version Notice: This is a rewritten version of the original judgment.

Court: Supreme Court of India

Case Number: Not extracted

Decision Date: 1 December 1950

Coram: S.R. Das

In this case the Court noted that the appeal was filed by the defendants first party against the judgment and decree of the High Court of Patna dated 23-2-1948, which had reversed the decree of the Subordinate Judge at Chapra dated 5-4-1945 and had decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs. The suit that gave rise to this appeal was instituted by the plaintiffs for a declaration of title to, and confirmation of possession of, certain lands and for other ancillary reliefs. The plaintiffs asserted that they derived title to the lands by purchase from the defendants second party under a registered deed of sale dated 19-7-1942. The pedigree-table annexed to the plaint was reproduced and showed the lineage of the defendants second party. It listed Milik Rai and then a branching diagram showing Sheo Sahai Rai, Ram Sahay Rai, Doma Rai-Mst. Bhagjogna, Kari Rai-Budha Kuer and further descendants including Janki, Risal, Udit, Sudit, Pargas, Sharda Rai, Gobind Bator, Bishun, Soman Rai, Malda Kuer (defendant 4), Adhikari Kuer (defendant 6) and Singhasan Rai (defendant 5). The table indicated that Janki Rai and Sharda Rai apparently left no issue.

The plaintiffs’ case was that on the deaths of Maida Kuer, widow of Gobind Rai, and Budha Kuer, widow of Kari Rai, the nearest reversioners – specifically Bator Rai (defendant 4), Singhasan Rai (defendant 5) and Mt. Adhikari Kuer (defendant 6) – inherited the respective shares of Gobind Rai and Kari Rai in the properties that were the subject of the suit. Accordingly, at the date of the deed of sale dated 19-7-1942, the defendants second party – namely Bator Rai, Singhasan Rai and Mt. Adhikari Kuer – owned the whole sixteen-anna share in the disputed lands. The plaintiffs claimed to be bona-fide purchasers for value from those owners and therefore instituted the suit for the reliefs mentioned. The defendants first party contested the suit. They challenged the correctness of the pedigree-table annexed to the plaint and in paragraphs 7 and 8 of their written statement attempted to set out what they alleged to be the true genealogical table. In paragraph 18 of the written statement they contended that on the deaths of Maida Kuer and Budha Kuer the father of defendants 1 and 2 had become possessed of the shares of Gobind Rai and Kari Rai as their nearest reversioner, and that neither Bator Rai nor Singhasan Rai had any connection or concern with those shares. Further, in paragraph 19 they pleaded that the lands belonging to Bator Rai and Singhasan Rai were in the possession of the defendants first party as Shikmidars for over twenty years and that they had acquired occupancy rights in those lands according to law. It was emphasized that the claim of Shikmi rights was made only with respect to the shares of Bator Rai and Singhasan Rai, and not with respect to the shares of Gobind Rai or Kari Rai, and that Bator Rai and Singhasan Rai had no interest in the latter shares. The learned Subordinate Judge held that the pedigree-table set out in the plaint was correct and that the defendants first party or the father of defendants 1 and 2 did not inherit the shares of Gobind Rai or Kari Rai on the deaths of their respective widows Maida Kuer and Budha Kuer. The Judge found that Bator Rai (defendant 4) and Singhasan Rai (defendant 5) inherited those shares as the nearest reversioners of Gobind Rai and Kari Rai and consequently by

The Court noted that the first group of defendants had occupied the disputed lands as Shikmidars for more than twenty years and that, according to their own claim, they had acquired lawful occupancy rights in those lands. It was observed that the Shikmi rights asserted by Bator Rai (defendant 4) and Singhasan Rai (defendant 5) pertained only to the portions of the property that corresponded to their individual shares in the suit. The claim did not extend to the shares that originally belonged to Gobind Rai or Kari Rai. In fact, the pleadings expressly stated that Bator Rai and Singhasan Rai had no interest or connection whatsoever with the shares of Gobind Rai and Kari Rai. The learned Subordinate Judge subsequently held that the pedigree-table annexed to the plaint was accurate. He found that the first group of defendants, or the father of defendants 1 and 2, had not inherited the shares of Gobind Rai or Kari Rai following the deaths of their respective widows, Maida Kuer and Budha Kuer. Instead, the Judge concluded that Bator Rai and Singhasan Rai had inherited those shares as the nearest reversioners of Gobind Rai and Kari Rai, and that, by virtue of the registered deed of sale, the plaintiffs had acquired title to the disputed lands. Nevertheless, the Subordinate Judge reached a further conclusion that Bator Rai and Singhasan Rai had entered into a Shikmi settlement covering not only their original shares but also the shares of Gobind Rai and Kari Rai, which they had inherited as nearest reversioners after the deaths of the widows. Although the written statement did not contain any such allegation, the Judge felt compelled to adopt this view because it appeared to be the only rational explanation for the first group of defendants’ possession of the lands of Maida Kuer and Budha Kuer and their continuous payment of rent to the superior landlords since the year 1333 F.S. Accordingly, while the Subordinate Judge declared that the plaintiffs held title, he declined to pass a decree of possession in their favour, reasoning that the first group of defendants were Shikmidars of the lands and therefore could not be evicted. The plaintiffs challenged this decision on appeal. The High Court correctly observed that the trial Court had improperly created a new case against the first group of defendants concerning the shares of Gobind Rai and Kari Rai—an issue that had never been raised in the written statement and that contradicted the title asserted by the defendants. The High Court further found that the rent receipts (Exhibit E series) produced by the first group of defendants, showing payment of rent to the superior landlords, were consistent with a permissive occupation of the lands under an amicable arrangement with the second group of defendants, rather than indicating any landlord-tenant relationship between the two sets of defendants.

There were two sets of defendants in this suit, and the High Court relied on the testimony of Jagarnath Rai, who was identified as defendant number 2, to support its findings; excerpts from his evidence were reproduced in the High Court’s judgment. After re-examining all the material placed before it, the High Court articulated eight specific conclusions. First, it held that no settlement had ever been established with the first-party defendants regarding the disputed lands in Shikmi. Second, it observed that the first-party defendants had never paid any rent as Shikmidars for those lands. Third, the Court explained that, being kinsmen of the second-party defendants, the first-party defendants cultivated the fields and remitted the rents due on them to the proprietors under an arrangement of permissive occupation rather than under any landlord-tenant relationship. Fourth, it noted that no landlord-tenant relationship had ever been contemplated between the parties. Fifth, the Court concluded that the contesting defendants had not advanced a claim based on adverse possession. Sixth, even assuming they attempted to rely on adverse possession, the Court said they could not succeed because the rent receipts they produced demonstrated that they had acknowledged the title of the second-party defendants up to twelve years after the suit was instituted. Seventh, the Court stressed that the trial judge was not authorised to create a case that the parties themselves had not pleaded. Eighth, it found that the defendants had failed to prove any title or right to possession in respect of the disputed lands and therefore could not successfully oppose the plaintiffs’ request for a declaration of title and recovery of possession. The counsel for the appellants guided the Court through the pleadings and evidence, but the Court was not persuaded that any point raised cast doubt on the High Court’s findings, which it considered well-founded. The counsel for the appellants further argued that, because the plaintiffs had not shown they were in possession within twelve years before the suit, a decree for possession could not be granted. The Court found no merit in that contention, noting that the first-party defendants’ possession was only permissive; consequently, the second-party defendants were deemed to have been in possession through the first-party defendants until the latter asserted an adverse claim shortly before the land was sold to the plaintiffs. Accordingly, the Court dismissed the appeal and ordered that the appellants pay the costs.