Bookmark
PDF
Share
CaseIQ

Sasi Sekhareshwar Roy v. Lalit Mohan Maitra

Privy Council

Oct 31, 1924

Judgment

Subsequent
References

CaseIQ

Important Paras

Please sign up to view Important Paras.

Smart Summary (Beta)

Factual and Procedural Background

Two Zemindars were in possession of certain lands in a problematic manner, sharing possession and rents from tenants in a confusing and overlapping way. To resolve this, they agreed to arbitration, resulting in an award that allotted specific villages to each party. Possession was partially taken in accordance with the award. The plaintiff filed the present suit seeking possession of certain lands that he claimed were rightfully his under the award but were still held by the defendant. The plaintiff alleged that despite the defendant being bound by the award and the decree passed upon it, the defendant refused to relinquish possession of these lands. The plaintiff sought a decree for khas possession and eviction of the defendant from the specified lands.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the plaintiff could have obtained execution of the decree based on the arbitration award at the relevant time.
Whether the defendant was justified in not surrendering possession of the lands as per the award and decree.
Whether the plaintiff's claim for possession was barred by limitation due to failure to execute the decree in time.

Arguments of the Parties

Plaintiff's Arguments

The plaintiff asserted that the defendant was bound by the arbitration award and decree to give up possession of certain lands.
The defendant was not entitled to enjoy or possess the lands mentioned in the schedules annexed to the plaint.
The plaintiff sought a declaration of his right and a decree for khas possession and eviction of the defendant.

Defendant's Arguments

The defendant contended that if the plaintiff's assertions were correct, the plaintiff should have executed the decree earlier.
The defendant argued that the decree had become unenforceable due to the expiry of the limitation period.
The defendant relied on the fact that the plaintiff failed to seek execution of the decree in a timely manner.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court observed that the decree was entered in terms of the arbitration award, which clearly set out the boundaries and rights of the parties. The court reasoned that if the defendant failed to surrender possession, the plaintiff could have sought execution of the decree through appropriate court process. Two scenarios were considered: either tenants were paying rent to the defendant instead of the plaintiff, or the plaintiff was physically prevented from entering the lands. In either case, the court found that a warrant for possession could have been obtained under the decree.

The court further noted a possible alternate scenario where some lands were uncultivated or under water and neither party possessed them immediately after the award. If the defendant later placed tenants on such lands after the limitation period expired, the plaintiff could have sought relief based on the award itself rather than the decree. However, this scenario was not pleaded or proved, and the court declined to entertain it at this late stage.

Consequently, the court concluded that the plaintiff's failure to execute the decree in a timely manner barred his claim for possession under the decree.

Holding and Implications

The appeal is dismissed with costs.

The decision directly affects the parties by upholding the lower court's ruling that the plaintiff's claim is barred due to non-execution of the decree within the limitation period. No new precedent was established by this ruling.

Show all summary ...

Lord Dunedin:-

In this case a ques tion has arisen between two Zemindars. They were in possession of certain proper ties in what may be called a very uncom fortable manner ; that is to say, they possessed certain lands in common, and the way of possession was a very uncomfort able way. One got the rents of certain tenants, and the other got the rents of others, and sometimes they both went to the same tenant and each realized a portion of his rent. In order to get rid of this in convenient situation, they agreed to arbit ration ; an arbitration was accordingly held, and the arbitrator allotted certain villages to one, and certain villages to the other. Thereupon possession to a certain extent was taken in accordance with the award. The present suit was raised by the plain tiff, and the object of the suit was to get possession of certain lands which, he said, were his under the award, and of which the defendant was in improper possession. He makes a plain averment in the plaint. He says, after setting out the fact of the award and the finding. " But in spite of his"- that is the defendant - " being bound in accordance with the provisions of the said award and the decree passed upon it to give up to the possession of the plaintiff" cer tain lands, " the defendant has not done so. The defendant is not entitled and has no right to enjoy and possess the lands mentioned" in the three schedules annexed. For relief he asks : " That on declaration that the lands mention ed in the three schedules are lands depicted in the Revenue Survey maps of mouzahas Lakshmipur, Bilborendra and Begpur respectively, and (on declaration) of the plaintiff's right on the basis of the aforesaid award and the decree passed upon it to get possession of the same, the plaintiff may get decree for khas possession of the same on eviction of the defendant from all these lands."

The answer that is made by the defen dant, and which has been given effect to by the Court below, is that if what the plaintiff says is true, the defendant ought to have executed the decree which he got and not have allowed that decree to be come null by reason of limitation. The question, therefore, resolves itself into this : Could he on the statement of the facts now made have at the time got execution upon the decree ? The decree was filed in Court, and the order of the Court is this : "It is ordered that this suit be decreed in the terms of the award annexed here with." The effect of that is not doubtful.

It is a decree which so to speak sets out again the words of the award. The words of the award, after going into the matter of the boundaries of the land and describing them, are these :

I further decide that the patties will collect rents and other profits

" from a certain date ''and that each of the two parties above-named will deliver respec tively to each other all the Zamindari papers which they may have in their possession."

If it is the fact, as the plain tiff says in his plaint, that the defendant did not give up possession, the way in which the plaintiff was kept out of the lands which he ought to have had can only have been one of two ways :

Either it was that a cultivating tenant was on these lands and paid rent to the defendant instead of to the plaintiff as he ought to have done, or else, if there was no tenant then it must have been that the plaintiff was kept out of the lands in a physical sense, that is to say, he was not allowed to go on to them. It seems to their Lordships to be plain that in either of those cases an appropriate warrant could have been got from the Court upon a decree framed in the terms mentioned.

That seems to end the case. It does not end perhaps all that might have been made of the case, because one can see that there might have been a case of this sort, and for aught their Lordships know this may really be the case. Some of these lands - how much exactly they do not know, but certainly a good proportion - were jungle lands, or lands under water ; at any rate lands not in a fit state for cultivation. If after the award the patties went down to the ground and said :

"Here are the boundaries that have been settled by the arbitrator ; this is my land, and that is yours,"

and then went away and nothing happened as regards this waste or watery land, and neither party went on to it and possessed it, and then, after the ex piry of the limitation years upon the judgment on the award, the defendant by means of a tenant went in upon those lands and began to cultivate them, and took the rent from the tenant, who was so put in, it is quite clear that the plaintiff could then have come and asked the assis tance of the Court. He would have founded upon the award itself and not upon the decree following upon it, and to that there would have been no answer. But unfortunately, although there is, one may almost say, more than a hint that that is the true state of the case, that is not the case that was made, and it is a case obviously that would not only have had to be averred but proved, and there might and probably would have been a great deal of evidence on one side and on the other. It is too late now for their Lord ships to take up that case. They will, therefore, humbly advise His Majesty that the appeal must be dismissed with costs.

Appeal dismissed.