Raja Rameshwar Rao And Another VS. Raja Govind Rao

Summary

---

Although title to a limited interest in property can be acquired by adverse possession, no limited interest in the nature of a permanent lease can be ordinarily acquired in a jagir which must initially be presumed to enure for the life-time of the grantee unless the grant itself shows otherwise.

Sankaran v. Periasami, (1890) I.L.R. 13 Mad. 467, Thakore Fatehsingji Dipsangji v. Bamanji Ardeshir Dalal, (1903)

I.L.R. 27 Bom. 5I5, Shrimat Daivasikhamani Ponnambala Desikar v. Periayanan Chetti, (1936) L.R. 63 I.A. 261 and Gulabdas,Jugjivandas v. The Collector of Surat, (1878) L.R.

6 I-A 54, referred to.

Although in the former State of Hyderabad a son might in normal course be allowed to succeed to the father's jagir, it could not be said that jagirs granted by the State were therefore permanent and hereditary in character, for the State generally .had the right to resume the grant.

Raje Vinaykrao Nemiwant Brahmin v. Raje Shriniwasrao Nemiwant Brahmin, I.L.R. [1942] Nag. 526 and Ahmad-un-Nissa Begum v. State, A.I.R. 1952 Hyd. 163, referred to.

Where, therefore, a grant was continued in a family from generation to generation, each grantee must be taken to hold it for his life and limitation against each must start from the date of his title.

Since a jagirdar could not grant a lease beyond his lifetime unless specifically empowered by the sanad or the law of the State, the period of adverse possession against one jagirdar could not be tacked to that against another for the purpose of art. I44 Of the Indian Limitation Act. In this respect a jagirdar stood on a different footing from that of the manager of a temple.

Jagdish Narayan v. Nawab Saeed Ahmed Khan, A.I.R. 1946 P.C.

59, referred to.

Shrimat Daivasikhamani Ponnambala Desikay v. Periyannan Chetti, (1936) L.R. 63 I.A. 26i, distinguished.

See the full content of this document

Extract

---

Raja Rameshwar Rao And Another VS. Raja Govind Rao

PETITIONER: RAJA RAMESHWAR RAO AND ANOTHER Vs.

RESPONDENT: RAJA GOVIND RAO

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 28/03/1961

BENCH: WANCHOO, K.N.

BENCH: WANCHOO, K.N.

GAJENDRAGADKAR, P.B.

CITATION: 1961 AIR 1442 1962 SCR (1) 618

ACT: Jagir-Grant made by Nizam-Adverse possession-Claim of limited right as permanent lessee-Maintainability-Indian Limitation Act, 1908 (9 of 1908), art. 144.

JUDGMENT: CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 399 of 1957.

Appeal from the judgment and decree dated July 27, 1954 of the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad in Civil Appeals Nos. I and 2 of 1954-55.

619

S. T. Desai, C. Krishna Reddi, T. Ramachandra Rao and M.

S. K. Sastri, for the appellants.

Sadashiv Rao, J. B. Dadachanji and S. N. Andley, for the respondent.

1961. March 28. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

WANCHOO, J.-This is an appeal on a certificate granted by the former High Court of Hyderabad. A suit was brought by the respondent in 1920 with respect to village Timmapet.

The case of the respondent was that the village had been granted to his ancestor Harinarayan alias Raja Nemiwant Bahadur by the Nizam in 1787. On the death of Raja Harinarayan, the village was conferred by another sanad on his son Raja Govind Narayan in 1811. Ever since then the village had continued in the possession of the descendants of Raja Govind Narayan. In 1817, Raja Govind Narayan granted this village on Tahud (i.e., lease) to Raja Rama Krishna Rao, ancestor of the defendants. Inam inquiries with respect to this village started in 1901 a...

See the full content of this document

---