1999 (7) TMI 693 - HC - Indian Laws

Court rules in favor of plaintiffs, rejecting tenancy claim, declaring property as mango tope, and awarding possession and profits.

The court determined the suit property as a mango tope, rejected the defendant's claim of tenancy, and found the plaintiffs entitled to possession and ... - Issues Involved:1. Whether the suit schedule property is a mango tope.2. Whether the defendant is a tenant under the plaintiff.3. Whether the defendant is a watchman as pleaded by the plaintiffs.4. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to possession.5. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the profits.6. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to interest.7. Whether the Court has got the jurisdiction with regard to the relief for possession.8. Whether the valuation is incorrect.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Whether the suit schedule property is a mango tope:The plaintiffs claimed the suit schedule property is a mango tope, while the defendant argued it was partly dry land and partly mango tope. The court examined documentary and oral evidence, including the partition deed (Ex.A1) and pattadar pass books (Exs.A2 to A5), which were inconclusive. The oral evidence from PW1 and DW1 indicated a significant portion of the land was a mango garden. The court concluded that the predominant use of the land was as a mango tope, supported by the presence of 120 mango trees and other trees, and the existence of a hut for constant watch, thus determining the property as a mango tope.2. Whether the defendant is a tenant under the plaintiff:The defendant claimed tenancy for 30 years, but his evidence was inconsistent and lacked documentary proof. The court noted the absence of written lease agreements or rent receipts. The defendant's witnesses (DWs.2 and 3) were not immediate neighbors and their evidence was deemed unreliable. The court emphasized that the burden of proof lay on the defendant to establish tenancy, which he failed to do. Consequently, the court rejected the defendant's plea of tenancy.3. Whether the defendant is a watchman as pleaded by the plaintiffs:The plaintiffs alleged the defendant was their watchman, and although they provided account entries as evidence, the court found these entries unverified due to the non-examination of the clerk who made them. Despite this, the court considered circumstantial evidence, such as the nature of the property and the existence of the hut, which supported the plaintiffs' claim. The court concluded that the defendant was more likely a watchman or licensee rather than a tenant.4. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to possession:Given that the plaintiffs were the owners and the defendant's possession was permissive, the court held that the plaintiffs were entitled to possession. The failure of the defendant to prove tenancy removed any legal barrier to the plaintiffs' claim for eviction.5. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the profits:The court granted profits to the plaintiffs, both past and future, as part of the decree, recognizing their entitlement due to the defendant's unauthorized appropriation of the produce.6. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to interest:The judgment does not provide specific details on the interest entitlement, but it is implied that the plaintiffs' claim for profits would include any applicable interest.7. Whether the Court has got the jurisdiction with regard to the relief for possession:The court addressed the jurisdictional issue by determining the nature of the property. Since the property was predominantly a mango tope, the Tenancy Act did not apply, and the civil court had jurisdiction to grant relief for possession.8. Whether the valuation is incorrect:The judgment does not elaborate on the issue of valuation, indicating it was not a significant point of contention or it was resolved in favor of the plaintiffs.Conclusion:The court dismissed the appeal, confirming the lower court's judgment and decree in favor of the plaintiffs. The defendant's claims of tenancy were rejected, and the plaintiffs were entitled to possession and profits. The appeal was dismissed with each party bearing their own costs.