- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Asutosh Roy v. Rampur Boalia Municipality
Structured Summary of the Opinion (Second Appeal — Rampur Boalia Municipality)
Factual and Procedural Background
This appeal was brought by the plaintiff against the Chairman of the Commissioners of the Rampur Boalia Municipality (the principal defendant) in a suit seeking a declaration and a permanent injunction restraining the Municipality from erecting huts and latrines on a piece of land.
The contested land was formerly Bakultala tank, within the municipal limits, which belonged in equal shares to the father of the plaintiff and the father of a pro forma defendant. The Municipality, treating the tank as insanitary, filled it with earth around 1912 under the powers conferred by Section 200(2) of the Bengal Municipal Act and was entitled to retain possession of the filled-up site. The owners were called upon to pay the costs of filling; the plaintiff paid his half share and, with the Municipality's consent, in 1916 took joint possession of the reclaimed site (about 5 cottahs). Since that time both the plaintiff and the Municipality were found to be in joint possession, though the plaintiff claimed sole occupation. The site was generally left vacant; the Municipality cleared it of jungle, and the plaintiff claimed he had cleared some parts and used them exclusively.
The Municipality decided to construct houses for sweepers on approximately 1 3/4 cottahs of the site. Local residents and the plaintiff protested. The plaintiff instituted suit on 25 September 1918 for a declaration of his rights and a permanent injunction to restrain erection of the huts and latrines. An ad interim injunction was initially issued but dissolved on the defendants' objection; the houses and latrines were nevertheless constructed during the suit's pendency.
At trial, the Munsif found that the plaintiff and the Municipality were co-sharers in joint possession and applied the law of joint owners; the Munsif disallowed the main prayer but ordered removal of the latrine and made no order as to costs. On appeal, the Subordinate Judge dismissed the plaintiff's appeal with costs. The present matter is a second appeal addressing whether the Municipality was justified in building the houses despite the plaintiff's protest and whether the plaintiff was entitled to the mandatory injunction sought.
Legal Issues Presented
- What are the rights of tenants-in-common who are in joint possession of land with respect to the mode of enjoyment of that joint right?
- Were the Municipality justified in erecting houses and latrines on part of the jointly possessed land in spite of the protest of their co-owner (the plaintiff)?
- If the Municipality was not justified, is the plaintiff entitled to a mandatory injunction directing removal of the buildings and restoration of the land?
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant (Plaintiff) — Main contentions and factual position
- The plaintiff asserted that he and the Municipality were co-sharers in joint possession of the reclaimed site (about 5 cottahs) and that he had a right to prevent a co-owner from changing the state of possession or using the property in a mode repugnant to his feelings (e.g., as a nuisance near his Kalibari).
- The plaintiff protested the Municipality's intended erection of huts and latrines and contended that there had been no acquiescence to such a change in the character of possession.
- He sought a declaration of his right and a permanent (mandatory) injunction requiring removal of the buildings and restoration of the land.
Respondent (Municipality) — Main defenses and arguments
- The Municipality continued with the works and relied, through their counsel, on the authority of Watson & Co. v. Ram Chand Dutt to argue that joint possession should not be awarded to the plaintiff in the circumstances of the case.
- The Municipality argued there had been no ouster of the plaintiff because they did not deny the plaintiff's title.
- They further urged that an injunction is a discretionary remedy and that the appellate courts should not disturb the exercise of discretion by the lower courts; the lower courts had limited the injunction to removal of latrines only.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Dijendra Narain Roy v. Purnendu Narain Roy [1910] 11 C.L.J. 189 | The rule that "each co-owner is in theory interested in every infinitesimal portion of the subject-matter and each has the right ... to be in possession of every part and parcel of the property jointly with the others." | The Court invoked this principle to support the proposition that co-owners have concurrent rights of possession and that one co-owner cannot unilaterally change the mode of possession to the exclusion of the other. |
| Ananda Chandra v. Parbati Nath [1906] 4 C.L.J. 198 | Referenced as a leading case followed in Dijendra Narain Roy; supports the same co-ownership possession principles. | Used as foundational authority (via Dijendra Narain Roy) for the proposition about the rights of co-owners to joint possession of every part of the property. |
| Lokenath Singh v. Dhwarkeshwar Prasad Narain Singh [1915] 21 C.L.J. 253 | Statement that "Every co-tenant has the right to enter into and occupy the common property and every part thereof, provided that in so doing he does not exclude his fellow tenants or otherwise deny to them some right to which they are entitled as co-tenants." | The Court relied on this principle to emphasize that enjoyment by one co-tenant is subject to the co-tenants' reciprocal rights and cannot exclude them. |
| Israil v. Samset Rahman [1913] 41 Cal. 436 | Principle that if a co-owner, with tacit consent of his co-sharer, is in solo occupation of a portion of joint property, he is not entitled to change the nature of that possession or use the property in a different mode from prior use. | The Court applied this to hold that a co-sharer cannot unilaterally alter the character of joint possession without consent; the Municipality's actions amounted to a prohibited change in possession. |
| Watson & Co. v. Ram Chand Dutt [1891] 18 Cal. 10 | Authority cited by respondents to argue against awarding joint possession to the plaintiff; the case was one where possession and conduct of parties led to a nuanced outcome. | The Court examined the facts of Watson and distinguished them from the present case, concluding that Watson did not assist the defendants because in Watson the parties' conduct justified modification of strict rights (continuous cultivation and possession by Watsons). The Court found the present facts different and not within that exception. |
| Debendra Narayan Singh v. Narendra Narayan Singh (1919) 23 29 C.L.J. 504; C.W.N. 900 | Rule that "when there is an actual turning out or keeping out of possession there is an ouster." | The Court applied this rule to find that the Municipality's actions in taking exclusive possession of part of the joint land, in spite of plaintiff's protest, constituted an ouster. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court's reasoning proceeded by first identifying and applying established principles governing co-ownership and joint possession. The Court relied on several precedents to synthesize the following propositions:
- Each co-owner has a right to be in joint possession of every part of the property and a corresponding right to enjoy the property in its existing mode of use (Dijendra Narain Roy; Ananda Chandra).
- A co-tenant may enter and occupy the common property, but such occupation must not exclude or deny rights to fellow co-tenants (Lokenath Singh).
- If a co-owner occupies a portion of joint property with tacit consent, he cannot subsequently change the nature of that possession or use without the co-sharer's consent (Israil v. Samset Rahman).
Applying these principles to the facts found by the courts below (that plaintiff and Municipality were co-sharers in joint possession of the 5 cottahs), the Court held that the Municipality's unilateral attempt to take exclusive occupation of about 1 3/4 cottahs and to erect houses and latrines, despite the plaintiff's protest, amounted to an unjustified disturbance of the existing joint possession. The Court found no acquiescence by the plaintiff and no equitable ground to refuse relief.
The Court considered the respondents' reliance on Watson & Co. v. Ram Chand Dutt but distinguished that case on its facts: in Watson the occupants had continued in possession and cultivation after the relevant date, and the strict rights of the parties were modified for reasons explained in that decision. The Court found those factual conditions absent here and therefore concluded Watson did not aid the defendants.
The Court also addressed the contention that there had been no ouster because the Municipality did not deny title; it invoked the rule from Debendra Narayan Singh that an actual turning out or keeping out of possession constitutes an ouster, and found that an ouster had occurred in the present case.
Regarding discretionary relief, the Court noted that injunction is a discretionary remedy but emphasized that discretion must be exercised according to recognized principles of equity and not arbitrarily. The lower courts had limited relief (ordering removal only of the latrine), apparently construing the matter as one of nuisance; the appellate Court found that the plaintiff's case was primarily one of infringement of co-owner rights by a co-owner, and thus the remedy should cover the whole subject-matter and not be so limited.
Holding and Implications
Holding: The Court allowed the appeal in part and modified the judgments and decrees of the lower Courts: the plaintiff's suit was decreed in full; the defendants (the Municipality) were directed to remove all the buildings erected on the disputed land and to restore the land to its original condition; the plaintiff was awarded costs in all Courts. The Court directed removal of the buildings within two months from the date of the judgment and ordered that, in default, the plaintiff would be entitled to have them removed in execution of the decree.
Implications:
- Direct effect on the parties: the Municipality must remove the huts and latrines, restore the land, and pay the plaintiff's costs; the plaintiff may enforce removal by execution if the Municipality does not comply within two months.
- The decision enforces established principles concerning the rights of co-owners in joint possession and the limits on unilateral changes in the mode of possession. The Court distinguished factual exceptions relied upon by the Municipality and found them inapplicable here.
- The opinion does not purport to set a novel legal doctrine but applies and clarifies existing authorities to the facts; no broader new precedent is expressly declared beyond the application of the cited principles to these facts.
Judge note: The opinion includes a concurrence by Greaves, J., who agreed with the result.
1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff against the Chairman of the Commissioners of the Rampur Boalia Municipality as the principal defendant in a suit for an injunction against the defendant.
2. The question which arises for decision in this second appeal relates to the rights of tenants-in-common, who are in joint possession of a certain piece of land, as to the mode of enjoyment of such joint rights.
3. The facts which gave raise to the litigation between the parties shortly stated are these :-That a tank called Bakultala tank within the Municipal limits of Rampur Boalia Municipality belonged in equal shares to the father of the plaintiff and the father of the pro forma defendant. The Municipality finding that the tank was insanitary, after serving the necessary notices took possession of the tank and filled it up with earth at their own costs and it is not disputed that the Municipality was entitled to retain possession of the filled up site under the provisions of Section 200 (2) of the Bengal Municipal Act, after it was filled up in or about the year 1912. The owners were called upon to pay the costs of filling up the tank and take its possession back. The plaintiff paid his half share of the costs and with the consent of the Municipality in 1916 took joint possession of the site which measures about 5 cottahs in all. It is also not disputed that since then both the plaintiff and the Municipality were in joint possession of the re-claimed land, although the plaintiff alleged that he was in sole occupation of it. In fact the site was left vacant and nobody exercised any visible act of occupation or user but it was in evidence that the Municipality kept the place clear of jungles and shrubs although the plaintiff also claimed to have cleared the jungles on the lands and made exclusive user of some sort. The Munsif, however, found, to quote his own words,
" thus eventually the plaintiff and principal defendants are in the position of co-sharers in joint possession of the disputed land which was, in fact, patit land, without any special or particular act of possession by any side in the same all these three years before suit, and the law of joint owners will apply in a case like this."This view of the Munsif has been accepted by the Subordinate Judge also.
4. The Municipality conceived the idea of constructing houses for the accommodation of their sweepers on about 1 3/4 cottahs of this site and when preparation for building the huts were being made "All the people of locality headed by Hari Nath Sen" protested against the action of the Municipality and the plaintiff opposed the intended user of joint land for accommodation of methors as a nuisance to the neighbourhood and also on the ground that the site was close to his Kalibari.
5. The Municipality, however, decided to proceed with the work and before any work had been actually done, the present suit was instituted on the 25th September 1918 for a declaration of the plaintiff's right and for a permanent injunction restraining the Municipality from erecting the proposed huts and latrines for the accommodation of Municipal sweepers and methors. An ad interim injunction was issued but was dissolved on the objection of the defendants, the Municipality. The houses and the latrines were constructed by the Municipality during the pendency of the suit.
6. The learned Munsif found plaintiff's title and possession as I have stated before but disallowed the main prayer but granted an injunction for the removal of the latrine and made no order as to costs.
7. On appeal by the plaintiff, the Subordinate Judge dismissed the appeal with costs.
8. I shall first endeavour to state some of the principles which are necessary to consider for the determination of the question which arises in this case, namely, were the Municipality justified in building the houses on land which was in joint possession, in spite of the protest of their co-owner the plaintiff and if not, is the plaintiff entitled to the mandatory injunction prayed for.
9. In the case of Dijendra Narain Roy v. Purnendu Narain Roy [1910] 11 C.L.J. 189 following the case of Ananda Chandra v. Parbati Nath [1906] 4 C.L.J. 198, Mr. Justice Mookerjee laid down the rule as follows:
Each co-owner is in theory interested in every infinitesimal portion of the subject-matter and each has the right irrespective of the quantity of interest, to be in possession of every part and parcel of the property jointly with the others.
10. In the case of Lokenath Singh v. Dhwarkeshwar Prasad Narain Singh [1915] 21 C.L.J. 253, it was laid down that " Every co-tenant has the right to enter into and occupy the common property and every part thereof, provided that in so doing he does not exclude his follow tenants or otherwise deny to them some right to which they are entitled as co-tenants.
11. In the case of Israil v. Samset Rahman [1913] 41 Cal. 436, it was laid down: If a co-owner with the tacit consent of his co-sharer, is in the solo occupation of a portion of joint property, he is not entitled to change the nature of that possession or to use the property in a mode different from that in which it had previously been used."
12. From the principles I have just quoted it follows that one co-sharer has no justification to change without the consent of his co-tenant, the state of the possession as enjoyed by the co-tenants. According to the findings of the Courts plaintiff and the defendants were in joint possession of these 5 Cottas of land and the moment the Municipality attempted to take this land into their exclusive occupation the plaintiff protested. When the Municipality in disregard of this protest persisted in their determination the present suit was instituted. I do not see why the plaintiff should not be restored to his original position. There was no acquiescence here nor is there any equitable consideration which would justify the Court to refuse to give the plaintiff his just right.
13. The Courts below seem to think that the objections of the plaintiff were not reasonable. Is the plaintiff bound to justify the validity of his objections or to suit the convenience of his co-tenant? It was not his business. In the circumstances of this case, it appears to me that the objections of the plaintiff were not merely fanciful. He bad a right to insist that his own property should not be put to a use which was repugnant to his feelings, and in fact the whole neighbourhood objected to the erection of those houses. In case a co-sharer is unreasonable and obstructs his co-tenant in making beneficial use of the joint property, the remedy of the tenant in common is to seek partition and not to take forcible possession of the joint property to the exclusion of his co-sharers.
14. It has been argued by the learned vakil for the respondent on the authority of the case of Watson & Co. v. Ram Chand Dutt [1891] 18 Cal. 10, that here as in that case joint possession should cot be awarded to the plaintiff. I do not think that this case will help the defendants. It is one of those cases which lie just near the border line and that is the reason why both the District Judge and the High Court gave decrees enforcing the claim of the plaintiffs in that case as to the 14 annas of the property to which the Watsons had no title. If the facts are closely examined it would appear that the strict rights of the plaintiffs were modified on two main grounds. It appears that the Watsons were in possession of the entire land until the 14th of September 1893 when the leases of the 14 annas-share to the Watsons under the Dutts expired and after that the Watsons
"continued in possession and to cultivate and sow it with indigo as they had done during the continuance of the leases."(See page 118.)
15. Here, therefore, there was no change made by the Watsons in the nature of the existing possession; all that they did was to refuse to allow the Dutts to come in and to take joint possession to the extent of their share. Therefore this case does not fall within the rule "that a co-sharer is not entitled to change the nature of existing state of things."
16. In the present case, joint possession of the parties was disturbed by the Municipality and that in spite of the protest of the plaintiff. There can be no justification for such a highhanded proceeding.
17. Then their Lordships pointed out it would be against public policy in Bengal to allow a large tract of valuable land to lie uncultivated "until all the share-holders can agree upon a mode of cultivation to be adopted, or until a partition by metes and bounds can be effected a work which in ordinary course in a large estate would probably occupy a period including many seasons," etc. After expressing themselves in the language quoted above their Lordships say: "In Bengal the Courts of Justice, in cases when no specific rule exists, are to act according to justice, equity and good conscience and if, in a ease of share-holders holding lands in common, it should be found that one share-holder is in the act of cultivating a portion of the lands which is not being actually used by another, it would be scarcely consistent with the rule above indicated to restrain him."
18. Therein is the key to the judgment of their Lordships.
19. In the present case there are no grounds on which it can be said that the plaintiff has lost his undoubted rights to insist upon the continuation of the existing state of the possession of the common lands.
20. It was next urged by the learned vakil for the respondent that there was no ouster of the plaintiff because the Municipality did not deny the title of the plaintiff.
21. It was held in the case of Debendra Narayan Singh v. Narendra Narayan Singh (1919) 23 29 C.L.J. 504. C.W.N. 900 that "when there is an actual turning out or keeping out of possession there is an ouster." This is what has happened in the present ease.
22. It was lastly urged on behalf of the respondent that remedy by an injunction is a discretionary matter and this Court should not interfere with the decree of the Courts below. Injunction was granted in this case but it was limited to the latrines. It seems that the Courts below thought in the present case that the plaintiff was seeking an injunction on the ground of actionable nuisance forgetting that the case was based on the ground of infringement of the rights of a co-owner by another co-owner. The plaintiff's remedy should not have been limited but should have included the whole subject-matters of the suit. The discretion of the Court must be exercised on recognised principles and should not be arbitrary. Where the circumstances of a case demand it the High Court has frequently interfered with the orders of the lower Courts if they were inconsistent with sound principles.
23. The defendants cannot complain if they are now compelled to restore the property to its original condition by the removal of the huts built on the land which they Persisted in building in spite of the institution of the suit.
24. In the result the judgments and decrees of the lower Courts are modified and the suit of the plaintiff is decreed in full and the defendants are directed to remove all the buildings and restore the land to its original condition. The plaintiff will get his costs in all Courts. We direct that the building should be removed within two months from this date and in default the plaintiff will be entitled to get them removed in execution of the decree.
Greaves, J.
25. I agree.
Alert