Sita Maharani and Ors. vs Chhedi Mahto 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: 3 February, 1955

Coram: Jafer Imam

In the matter of Sita Maharani and others versus Chhedi Mahto and others, decided on 3 February 1955 by the Supreme Court of India, the judgment was authored by Justice Jafer Imam. The appeal challenged the order of the Patna High Court that had set aside the decree originally issued by the Additional District Judge of Motihari in favour of Raja Mohan Bikram Shah, who was the proprietor of the Ramnager Raj. After the death of the Raja, the appellants were substituted in his place and stead. They subsequently filed an application before the High Court seeking a certificate of leave to appeal to this Court, and such leave was granted.

The factual backdrop began with a registered deed dated 19 March 1910, in which the Raja executed a Sadaua Pataua deed in favour of Messrs H. Murrey and G. Murrey, hereinafter referred to as the Naraipur Concern. The deed concerned seventeen villages, including the village of Ratni, and was granted for a term of thirty-one years. The land that is the subject of the suit corresponds to Khata No. 2 of village Ratni and comprises plot numbers 2, 87 and 89. The Raja instituted the suit, which now forms the basis of this appeal, seeking a declaration that the land in question constituted his Bakasht and that the respondents were unlawfully occupying it. He also prayed for the recovery of possession, mesne profits, interest pendente lite and future interest. The respondents contested the suit by asserting that the land had been permanently settled upon them by the Naraipur Concern as Raiyats under a Patta Hunda (Exhibit A), described in this case as a hukumnama dated 5 March 1918. They claimed to be settled Raiyats of village Ratni, to have been in possession of the land for more than twenty years, and to have acquired occupancy rights in the disputed parcel. They initially pleaded adverse possession, but that plea was abandoned at trial. The Additional District Judge of Motihari decreed in favour of the plaintiff, leaving the determination of the amount of mesne profits for a later proceeding. The respondents appealed this decision to the High Court, which reversed the trial court’s decree and dismissed the suit. Regarding possession, the trial court did not accept the respondents’ claim of twenty-year possession, but it observed that around the time the Sadaua-Pataua mortgage was about to expire, the respondents were, in fact, in possession. The High Court affirmed these findings. The trial court further held that the hukumnama (Exhibit A) and the receipts submitted by the respondents as proof of payment of hunda rent were not genuine, concluding that the respondents had not been inducted onto the land by the Naraipur Concern and had not acquired any right of occupancy through the alleged settlement. The High Court expressed no reason to disturb the trial court’s findings concerning the authenticity of the hukumnama and the receipts.

The Court observed that the Hukumnama and the receipts produced by the respondents were not genuine. It further noted that the revenue record (Khatian) of the village of Ratni indicated that the respondents were settled Raiyats of that village. Nevertheless, the trial court had held that, pursuant to Section 21 of the Bihar Tenancy Act, a person could acquire a right of occupancy in the suit land only if he held the land in the capacity of a Raiyat. Because the alleged settlement had collapsed, the trial court found no evidence that the respondents possessed the suit land as Raiyats and consequently concluded that they had not acquired any right of occupancy. The High Court disagreed with this conclusion. It held that the trial court erred in saying there was no proof that the respondents possessed the disputed land as Raiyats, even though the settlement had failed. The High Court relied on an alleged acknowledgment contained in Exhibit D, the written statement filed by the Naraipur Concern in a rent-commutation proceeding under Section 40 of the Bihar Tenancy Act that had been instituted at the initiative of the respondents. The High Court rejected the contention that Exhibit D was inadmissible. It reasoned that because the respondents’ application for rent commutation was not opposed on the ground that they were not holding the land as Raiyats, this silence amounted to an acknowledgment by both the Naraipur Concern and the Ramnager Raj that the respondents held the land in the capacity of Raiyats. Accordingly, the High Court concluded that the respondents had successfully proved their possession of the suit land as Raiyats and, being settled Raiyats of the village, had acquired the right of occupancy.

Nevertheless, the High Court’s findings rested heavily on Exhibit D. It was observed that, but for the presence of Exhibit D, the appellate court would have affirmed the trial court’s decision because the latter had been agreed upon on both the question of possession and the authenticity of the Hukumnama and the receipts. Consequently, the pivotal issue for determination became whether the statement in Exhibit D truly constituted an acknowledgment that the respondents held the suit land as Raiyats, whether such acknowledgment bound the Ramnager Raj, and whether it could give rise to a Raiyati interest despite the courts below having rejected the creation of such an interest under the Hukumnama. To examine this issue, the Court considered two rent-commutation petitions filed on 7 September 1940. The first petition, filed by Mangni Mahto and others, was designated case number 9 of 1940-41, while the second petition, filed by Chedi Mahto, was case number 10 of 1940-41. Exhibit D is the written statement of the Naraipur Concern filed in case number 9. The document does not contain an explicit declaration that the respondents were holding the land as Raiyats. It does, however, contain a statement that Mangni Mahto had been in possession since the year 1343 Fasli of two bighas on a cash Hunda rent of Rs. 46 and 8 annas per year; Tejman Mahto was in possession of three bighas on Hunda rent at

Mangni Mahto held two bighas at a cash Hunda rent of Rs. 46 8/- per year, Tejman Mahto held three bighas at a rate of eighteen maunds per bigha annually, and Chedi Mahto held eight and one-quarter bighas at a rate of twenty-eight maunds per bigha. The order sheet identified as Exhibit C(3) in case number nine shows that the Ramnager Raj submitted an objection on 10-March-1941, although that objection has not been produced in the present suit. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate who was overseeing the rent-commutation matters ordered on 3-April-1941 that case nine be heard together with case ten, and recorded the direction in an order noted as “vide order in case No 10 of 1941”. Exhibit C, concerning the later case, records that an objection to the commutation petition was filed on behalf of the Naraipur Concern. The same document also admits that the tenant held the land as ‘Batai’ and consequently ordered that the case should proceed. The respondents argued that the observations in Exhibit C referred only to the land involved in case ten, not to the land in suit in case nine. They maintained that case ten dealt with different plots and therefore bore no relevance to the dispute over the land in question. Nevertheless, the operative portion of the order—stating that the case would proceed—was applied to case nine, effectively extending the direction of case ten to case nine. If the order in case ten was intended to govern case nine, it suggests that the Naraipur Concern also contended in the later proceeding that the applicants were ‘bataidars’. The objection submitted by the Naraipur Concern in case ten has not been produced in this suit, and its absence leaves the precise position unclear. The High Court appears not to have examined Exhibit C, even though it cited Exhibit C(3) in its reasoning. No final order from the commutation proceedings, indicating whether the applications were approved or denied, has been filed in the record. Assuming that Exhibit D constitutes an admission by the Naraipur Concern that the respondents held the land as ‘Raiyats’, Exhibit C(3) indicates that the Ramnager Raj filed an objection. That objection has not been produced by the respondents, and its inclusion might have demonstrated that the Ramnager Raj did not admit such a status. Both the Naraipur Concern and the Ramnager Raj participated as parties in the rent-commutation proceedings before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. Without a clear establishment that the Ramnager Raj expressly acknowledged the respondents as ‘Raiyats’, the High Court’s statement that there was ‘no room for doubt’ about such acknowledgment cannot be sustained. It is plausible that the Ramnager Raj was challenging the maintainability of the applications under Section 40 of the Bihar Tenancy Act on the ground that the applicants were not occupying as ‘Raiyats’. The conduct of the Ramnager Raj shortly after the expiry of the period covered by the ‘Sadaua Pataua’ deed shows that the respondents’ right to possess the land in suit was seriously disputed. Subsequent actions indicate that attempts were made to assert possession, which the respondents resisted, leading to further conflict.

In the present dispute, the Ramnager Raj attempted to assert possession of the land, an effort that was met with resistance by the respondent. Because the conflict appeared likely to disturb public order, the magistrate initiated proceedings under Section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The order dated 3-1-1944, recorded as Exhibit C (l), shows that counsel for the Ramnager Raj conceded that certain lands in the village of Ratan Purwah were occupied by persons holding the property on Hunda rent. However, concerning plot numbers 2, 87 and 89 in the village of Ratni, the same exhibit indicates that it was contested whether these plots had ever been settled by the Naraipur Concern in the names of Mangni Mahto and Tejman Mahto. Consequently, it is highly doubtful that the Ramnager Raj would have made any admission akin to that contained in Exhibit D, especially since the Raj had consistently opposed the respondents’ claims throughout the proceedings. Exhibit D was presented by the Naraipur Concern on 10-3-1941, roughly ten days before the expiration of the period prescribed by the “Sadaua Pataua” deed. At that moment, the Naraipur Concern did not possess a substantial interest in the suit land, whereas the Ramnager Raj faced the possible loss of Bakasht lands, a situation of serious concern to a landlord. Any statement by the Naraipur Concern acknowledging that the respondents held the land as Raiyats therefore cannot be treated as a routine management act that would bind the Ramnager Raj. Moreover, the Ramnager Raj had lodged an objection in Case No. 9 relating to the suit land and was contesting the respondents’ independent claim for rent commutation; there is no evidence that the position articulated by the Naraipur Concern in Exhibit D was ever accepted. Under these facts, the material in Exhibit D does not provide sufficient proof to infer that a Raiyati interest was created in the suit land. Although the High Court, relying on Exhibit D, concluded that the respondents possessed the suit land as Raiyats, the respondents’ written statement does not allege that a Raiyati interest arose because the Ramnager Raj or the Naraipur Concern—or both—acknowledged such an interest. Paragraph 9 of their written statement merely records that the Ramnager Raj and the Naraipur Concern admitted, during the commutation proceedings, the respondents’ possession and the settlement with them. The lower courts rejected the existence of any settlement, and a simple admission of possession cannot be taken to mean that the respondents held the land as Raiyats. Consequently, even though the respondents were settled Raiyats in the village of Ratni, they did not thereby acquire occupancy rights over the suit land under Section 21 of the Bihar Tenancy Act. Since it

In this case the respondents asserted that a written settlement of their Raiyati interest had been reduced to a document known as a ‘Hukumnama’. The law required that such a Hukumnama be registered in order to be admissible as evidence. Because the document had not been registered, the Court held that it could not be admitted, and consequently no evidence could be offered regarding its terms. Moreover, the Court observed that the contents of Exhibit D could not be relied upon for that purpose, especially since both the Hukumnama and the receipts presented in support of it had been determined to be non-genuine. The record contained no indication that the alleged admission shown in Exhibit D was based on any settlement other than the disputed Hukumnama. A further dispute between the appellants and the respondents concerned whether the Naraipur Concern, under the provisions of the ‘Sadaua Pataua’ deed, possessed the authority to create a settlement of Raiyati interest. The Court found it unnecessary to resolve that issue because the lower courts had concurrently concluded as a matter of fact that the Hukumnama on which the alleged settlement was said to rest, together with the supporting receipts, were not genuine. In other words, the respondents had failed to prove the existence of any settlement. Accordingly, the Court held that the High Court had erred in setting aside the decree of the Additional District Judge of Motihari. The appeal was therefore allowed, costs being awarded throughout. The decree of the High Court was set aside and the decree of the Additional District Judge was restored.