1956 (10) TMI 37 - SC - Indian Laws

Pine tree ownership dispute dismissed by Supreme Court for lack of evidence, no costs awarded

Raja Rajinder Chand Versus Sukhi

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, dismissing the appeals as the plaintiff failed to establish ownership rights over the pine trees. The ... - Issues Involved:1. Ownership of pine trees.2. Limitation period for filing the suits.3. Quantum of damages.Detailed Analysis:1. Ownership of Pine Trees:The primary issue was whether the plaintiff, the superior landlord (ala-malik), had ownership rights over the pine (chil) trees standing on the lands of the defendants, who are the inferior landlords (adna-maliks).The plaintiff claimed ownership based on three grounds:- Historical ownership by his ancestors, the independent rulers of Kangra, who allegedly retained rights over the pine trees even after granting the land to the ancestors of the adna-maliks.- Rights assigned by the British Government to Raja Jodhbir Chand, the first grantee of Nadaun Jagir, after the conquest of Kangra.- Recognition of his rights in the Wajib-ul-arz entries and several judicial decisions.The Court examined the history of the creation of Nadaun Jagir, the land revenue settlements, and the record-of-rights. It was determined that:- The sovereign rights of Raja Sansar Chand, the last independent ruler, did not pass to Raja Jodhbir Chand or his descendants. Raja Jodhbir Chand was merely a grantee under a grant by Maharaja Ranjit Singh and later by the British Government.- The Sanad (grant) dated October 11, 1848, primarily granted land revenue rights and did not explicitly include rights to the pine trees on cultivated lands of the subjects.- The entries in the Wajib-ul-arz (1892-93, 1899-1900, 1910-15) did not establish a grant or surrender of sovereign rights to the plaintiff. These entries were not sufficient to prove that the government had relinquished its rights to the pine trees in favor of the plaintiff.2. Limitation Period:The defendants initially argued that the suits were barred by time. However, the High Court agreed with the District Judge that the suits were not barred by limitation. This issue was not contested before the Supreme Court, and thus, it was not a live issue in the judgment.3. Quantum of Damages:The plaintiff claimed damages for the loss caused by the defendants tapping the pine trees. The Subordinate Judge held that if the plaintiff's ownership was established, some defendants in four of the suits would be liable for small amounts of damages. However, as the plaintiff failed to establish ownership, the issue of damages became moot.Conclusion:The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, concluding that the plaintiff failed to establish his claim to the pine trees. The appeals were dismissed, and no order for costs was made, considering the doubts arising from the Wajib-ul-arz entries. The judgment emphasized that the plaintiff could not claim the sovereign rights of the independent rulers of Kangra and that the Sanad did not grant rights to the pine trees on cultivated lands. The Wajib-ul-arz entries did not conclusively prove a grant or surrender of such rights to the plaintiff.