1950 (3) TMI 32 - HC - Indian Laws

High Court grants possession in land dispute, invalidating unregistered sales under Orissa Tenancy Act.

Paramananda Das and Ors. Versus Sankar Rath

The High Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, setting aside the lower appellate court's decision and granting them possession of the disputed property. ... - Issues Involved:1. Validity of oral sale under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act versus Section 31(1) of the Orissa Tenancy Act.2. Nature of the suit for ejectment and whether the plaintiffs can claim relief on the ground of trespass.Detailed Analysis:1. Validity of Oral Sale:The primary issue revolves around the conflict between Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act (T.P. Act) and Section 31(1) of the Orissa Tenancy Act (O.T. Act). The plaintiffs claimed title to the property through registered kabalas, while the defendant asserted an earlier oral sale accompanied by delivery of possession. The lower appellate court favored the defendant's oral sale, citing Section 54 of the T.P. Act, which allows transfer of property below Rs. 100 in value without a registered instrument.However, the High Court analyzed the legislative competence under the Government of India Act, 1935, which provided the Provincial Legislature exclusive jurisdiction over 'transfer, alienation, and devolution of agricultural land' (Item 21, Provincial Legislative List). The court concluded that Section 31(1) of the O.T. Act, which mandates registration for all transfers of occupancy holdings irrespective of value, overrides Section 54 of the T.P. Act. The High Court emphasized that the purpose of Section 31(1) was to ensure automatic notice to landlords and to make registration mandatory, thereby invalidating any unregistered transfer of agricultural land.2. Nature of the Suit for Ejectment:The second issue pertains to whether the plaintiffs can seek ejectment of the defendant on the grounds of trespass, despite initially framing the suit as one for ejectment of a tenant. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant was a tenant-at-will and sought his eviction after issuing a notice to quit. Both lower courts disbelieved the tenancy claim. The High Court, however, held that the plaintiffs' suit was essentially for declaration of title and recovery of possession, and not solely based on the tenancy claim.The court referred to the principle that if the plaintiff is entitled to relief on any ground set forth in the plaint, the court should grant it, provided the defendant is not taken by surprise. The High Court found that the defendant was aware of the title dispute and had ample opportunity to contest it. Therefore, the plaintiffs were entitled to a decree for ejectment based on their established title, even if the tenancy claim was not proven.Conclusion:The High Court set aside the lower appellate court's judgment and restored the Munsif's decree, affirming the plaintiffs' title and granting them possession of the disputed property. The court clarified that unregistered sales of agricultural land are invalid under Section 31(1) of the O.T. Act, and plaintiffs can seek ejectment of a trespasser if they establish their title, irrespective of initial claims of tenancy.Separate Judgment:B. Jagannadhadas, J., concurred with the primary judgment, emphasizing the mandatory nature of registration under Section 31(1) of the O.T. Act and the invalidity of unregistered sales of agricultural land, irrespective of the property's value. He highlighted the legislative intent behind the amendment to ensure reliable notice to landlords and to simplify the transfer process for raiyats.