TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the suit schedule property was predominantly a mango tope and therefore excluded from the tenancy regime; (ii) Whether the defendant proved that he was a tenant under the plaintiffs; (iii) Whether the defendant's possession was only permissive as a watchman or licensee, entitling the plaintiffs to recovery of possession.
Issue (i): Whether the suit schedule property was predominantly a mango tope and therefore excluded from the tenancy regime.
Analysis: The evidence showed that the land was an integral whole with mango trees occupying the substantial portion, while dry crops and vegetables were being raised only in the remaining vacant patches. The existence of a hut in the tope and the admitted presence of a large number of mango and other fruit trees supported the view that the land was used mainly as garden land. Applying the predominant purpose test, the mere cultivation of crops in parts of the land did not alter its essential character. As the property was found to be predominantly a mango tope, the tenancy provisions did not govern it.
Conclusion: The suit schedule property was held to be predominantly a mango tope, against the defendant.
Issue (ii): Whether the defendant proved that he was a tenant under the plaintiffs.
Analysis: The defendant took inconsistent stands about the source and duration of the alleged tenancy and produced no written lease or documentary proof of rent payment. The oral evidence of the witnesses relied upon by him was found unreliable, and no revenue records or official witnesses were examined to support the plea. In a case where the defendant set up a specific tenancy plea, the evidentiary burden lay on him under Section 102 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and he failed to discharge it.
Conclusion: The plea of tenancy was not proved and was rejected, against the defendant.
Issue (iii): Whether the defendant's possession was only permissive as a watchman or licensee, entitling the plaintiffs to recovery of possession.
Analysis: Although the plaintiffs' documentary evidence about the defendant being a watchman was not fully accepted, the admitted ownership of the property by the plaintiffs, the defendant's permissive occupation of the hut in the garden, the failure to prove tenancy, and the surrounding circumstances together made the plaintiffs' version more probable. Once the tenancy plea failed, the defendant could not resist the suit by asserting adverse possession, and the civil court could grant possession on the basis of the plaintiffs' title and the defendant's permissive occupation.
Conclusion: The defendant's possession was treated as permissive and the plaintiffs were entitled to recover possession, in favour of the plaintiffs.
Final Conclusion: The appeal was liable to fail because the property was found to be a mango tope, the tenancy plea was not established, and the plaintiffs' right to recover possession remained unaffected.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a defendant sets up tenancy to defeat a suit for possession, the burden of proving that plea lies on him, and the essential character of the land must be determined by its predominant use rather than by incidental cultivation in parts of it.
TaxTMI 
