1967 (11) TMI 114 - SC - Indian Laws

Legal possession must be obtained through proper channels. Forcible dispossession impermissible. Statutory procedures emphasized.

Lallu Yeshwant Singh (Dead) by his Legal Representative Versus Rao Jagdish Singh and others

The Supreme Court held that legal possession must be obtained through proper legal channels, emphasizing that forcible dispossession is impermissible. The ... - Issues Involved:1. Entitlement to recover possession under Section 326, Qanoon Mal, read with Section 163, Qanoon Ryotwari.2. Obligatory legal process for dispossession of a tenant.3. Interpretation of statutory provisions under Qanoon Ryotwari and Qanoon Mal.4. Relevance of title in suits under Section 326, Qanoon Mal, and Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act.5. Legal principles regarding forcible possession by landlords.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Entitlement to Recover Possession under Section 326, Qanoon Mal, read with Section 163, Qanoon Ryotwari:The appellant contended that under Section 326, Qanoon Mal, read with Section 163, Qanoon Ryotwari, a plaintiff is entitled to recover possession if dispossessed from prior juridical possession within six months of the suit, and the question of title is irrelevant in such a suit. The Supreme Court agreed, stating that Section 326 is similar to Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877, where the question of title does not arise, and the focus is on unlawful disturbance of possession.2. Obligatory Legal Process for Dispossession of a Tenant:The Board of Revenue held that even if a tenant's right is extinguished under Section 82 of Qanoon Ryotwari due to arrears, the tenant must be legally dispossessed. The High Court, however, concluded that it was not obligatory for the defendant to file a suit under Section 137 of Qanoon Ryotwari. The Supreme Court disagreed with the High Court, emphasizing that possession should be obtained through legal means, not by force, supporting the Board's view that dispossession should follow the procedure outlined in Section 137 of Qanoon Ryotwari.3. Interpretation of Statutory Provisions under Qanoon Ryotwari and Qanoon Mal:The Supreme Court interpreted the statutory provisions, noting that Section 82 (3) of Qanoon Ryotwari does not automatically extinguish a tenant's right due to arrears, as the Collector can accept arrears under special circumstances. The Court found that Section 326 of Qanoon Mal, which deals with unlawful disturbance of possession, provides a shorter limitation period and summary procedure, indicating its focus on unlawful dispossession rather than title.4. Relevance of Title in Suits under Section 326, Qanoon Mal, and Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act:The Supreme Court emphasized that title is irrelevant in suits under Section 326 of Qanoon Mal, similar to Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act. The Court cited previous judgments, including Midnapur Zamindary Company Limited v. Naresh Narayan Roy and K.K. Verma v. Naraindas C. Malkani, which established that possession, even without title, is protected by law, and forcible dispossession is not permitted.5. Legal Principles Regarding Forcible Possession by Landlords:The Supreme Court reiterated that in India, landlords cannot take possession forcibly and must seek legal recourse. The Court referenced several cases, including Yar Mohammad v. Lakshmi Das and the Privy Council's observations, affirming that possession must be obtained through the Court, and forcible entry by landlords constitutes trespass.Conclusion:The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in quashing the order of the Board of Revenue. The appeal was allowed with costs, the judgment of the High Court was set aside, and the order of the Board of Revenue was restored. The Court affirmed that legal possession must be obtained through proper legal channels, and forcible dispossession is not permissible.