S.A. No. 1139/2005. Case: Shakuntala Guha and Ors. Vs Jasmit Kaur Narula and Ors.. High Court of Madhya Pradesh (India)
| Case Number | S.A. No. 1139/2005 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Atulanand Awasthy, Counsel |
| Judges | Ashok Kumar Joshi, J. |
| Issue | Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) - Order XLI Rules 22, 33; Section 100; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) - Section 33; Displaced Persons Compensation and Rehabilitation Act, 1954 [Repealed] - Sections 27, 36; Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 - Sections 12(1)(a), 12(1)(c), 12(1)(n); Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - ... |
| Judgement Date | February 06, 2017 |
| Court | High Court of Madhya Pradesh (India) |
Judgment:
Ashok Kumar Joshi, J.
-
This second appeal is filed by the substituted defendants under Section 100 of the C.P.C. against the judgment and decree passed on 21/3/2005 in Civil Appeal No. 59-A/2004 by Sixth Additional District Judge, Jabalpur affirming the decree of eviction of tenant and other reliefs passed by Fifteenth Civil Judge, Class-II on 7/6/2000 passed in Civil Suit No. 230-A/1994 only on the ground of Section 12(1)(c) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, whereas the above-mentioned trial Court has decreed the suit filed by the respondents/plaintiffs on two grounds of Section 12(1)(a) and (c) of the above-mentioned Act.
-
This appeal was admitted on 8/7/2015 on the following substantial questions of law:-
"(i) Whether there was any attornment of tenancy in favour of the respondents by operation of law and the respondents became the landlord in relation to the property in suit and whether the appellants can be termed as tenant of the respondents/plaintiffs?
(ii) Whether the suit of the respondents/plaintiffs is barred by the period of limitation and whether the appellants/defendants have perfected their title by way of adverse possession?
(iii) Whether the appellants/defendants have rightly denied the title of the plaintiffs or the act of the defendants is bona fide, hence they are not liable to be evicted from the suit premises under the provisions of Section 12(1) (a) and 12(1)(c) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act?"
-
In order to get grips with the core controversy development of undisputed facts may be noticed. Disputed premises (suit accommodation) was previously part of evacuee property situated in Gorakhpur, Jabalpur. A portion of open land of property bearing diverted plot Nos. 531 and 534 of Nazul sheet No. 293 was allotted to the original defendant (Late) Shri Anil Kumar Guha on lease by the custodian from 1/9/1953 at the rate of rent of Rs. 15/- per month on the condition that he could construct over it, but on receiving intimation, he would have to remove his construction within seven days. Shri A.K. Guha made some construction over it, which later on had been given municipal house No. 281-A by Municipal Corporation Jabalpur. In November, 1955 some evacuee properties including house Nos. 281, 281/1 to 281/22 on open plot Nos. 534 and 531, whose previous evacuee owner was Hamid Ahmed and others were sold by Regional Settlement Commissioner of M.P. by Government auction. Sardar Amir Singh (original plaintiff No. 1) and his ten other associates purchased this property in auction sale. After finalization of sale, a sale certificate dated 19/9/1963 was issued in favour of purchasers. After this auction sale, some open land previously in possession of Shri A.K. Guha was left by Shri Guha and thus, the custodian of evacuee property reduced the rent of the land leased out to Mr. Guha from June 1957 to Rs. 2.50/- per month. A "deed of conveyance of building constructed on lease -hold sites sold otherwise than by public auction" executed on 4/2/1985 in favour of Shri A.K. Guha was executed in the name of president of India, under which the premium was fixed as Rs. 2507.50/-. During the pendency of the civil suit before the trial Court, all the three plaintiffs and original defendant Shri A.K. Guha expired and substituted by their legal representatives.
-
The litigation history between parties includes first eviction suit filed by Sardar Amir Singh only against Shri A.K. Guha, which was finally decided by this Court by a judgment (Ex. P-1=D-6) and decree dated 20/8/1976 passed in S.A. No. 483/1971, whereby the suit of Amir Singh was dismissed on the ground that other co-owners were not joined in that eviction suit, but in the judgment passed by this Court, it was held that the portion occupied by Shri A.K. Guha is included in the property sold by above-mentioned auction sale to Sardar Amir Singh and his other associates. The SLP petition filed by Shri A.K. Guha against the aforesaid judgment was dismissed by the Supreme Court. By an order (Ex. P-2) dated 22/11/1989 passed in Misc. Petition No. 1331/1985 filed by Sardar Ranjeet Singh and seven others, this Court quashed the order dated 9/1/1985 passed by the authority concerned, by which the portion of diverted plot Nos. 531 and 534 of Nazul Sheet No. 293, Gorakhpur Jabalpur were allotted to Anil Kumar Guha and above-mentioned conveyance deed of lease dated 4/2/1985. The SLP petition filed by A.K. Guha against the above-mentioned order dated 22/11/1989 passed by this Court was also dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 30/4/1990 (Ex. P-3).
-
The subsequent eviction suit was filed on 2/11/1983 by plaintiff No. 1 Sardar Amir Singh, plaintiff No. 2 Shri Meharchand and plaintiff No. 3 Sardar Pyara Singh on pleadings that suit plot No. 534/1 area 7139 sq.ft. is a part of the property purchased in auction sale. Managing Director of the evacuee property had issued a sale-certificate, on the basis of which plaintiffs became owners of the suit property. Previous suit No. 59-A/1968 filed by Sardar Amir Singh was finally decided by this Court in Second Appeal on 20/8/1976 and the suit was dismissed on the ground that according to the legal position prevailing at that time, other co-owners were not joined as co-plaintiffs. In oral partition happened on 29/3/1964 among auction purchasers, the suit property had fallen in share of three original plaintiffs. The defendant had never paid rent to the plaintiffs, but he became tenant in the suit accommodation of the plaintiffs by operation of law. The defendant had denied the title of the plaintiffs and claimed his own title. Plaintiffs are desirous of construction of house...
To continue reading
Request your trial