Revenue records, lawful possession, and statutory bar determined the land dispute and supported Government resumption after lease expiry.

A notice under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code was treated as substantially compliant because the plaintiffs were sufficiently identified, but the suit remained barred under Section 11 of the Bombay Revenue Jurisdiction Act since the Government's vacation notice was treated as an appealable revenue order and the statutory appeals were not pursued. The plaintiffs also failed to prove title by original ownership, adverse possession, or the presumption under Section 110 of the Indian Evidence Act, as their possession lacked a lawful origin and the presumption of lawful possession did not arise. Revenue records and surrounding circumstances established a ninety-nine-year Government lease that expired in March 1930, so the land became resumable on expiry.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the suit was barred for want of compliance with Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code and Section 11 of the Bombay Revenue Jurisdiction Act, (ii) whether the plaintiffs established title to the land by original ownership, adverse possession, or the presumption arising from long possession under Section 110 of the Indian Evidence Act, and (iii) whether the Government proved that the land was held on a lease for ninety-nine years which had expired in March 1930, entitling it to resume possession.

Issue (i): whether the suit was barred for want of compliance with Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code and Section 11 of the Bombay Revenue Jurisdiction Act

Analysis: The notice under Section 80 was held to be substantially compliant because the plaintiffs were sufficiently identified and the section did not require the additional particulars contended for. The Government's notice directing vacation of the land was treated as a decision or order under the Land Revenue Code, appealable under Section 203, and the failure to pursue the statutory appeals attracted the bar under Section 11 of the Bombay Revenue Jurisdiction Act.

Conclusion: The suit was not barred by Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code, but it was barred under Section 11 of the Bombay Revenue Jurisdiction Act.

Issue (ii): whether the plaintiffs established title to the land by original ownership, adverse possession, or the presumption arising from long possession under Section 110 of the Indian Evidence Act

Analysis: The plaintiffs failed to prove any original title by grant or purchase. Their own case did not show a lawful inception of possession, and the evidence did not establish adverse possession for the requisite period. The presumption under Section 110 was held inapplicable because the possession was not shown to be prima facie lawful and the statutory presumption in favour of Government ownership of unproved private land displaced the claim based on long possession.

Conclusion: The plaintiffs did not establish title by original ownership, adverse possession, or the presumption from long possession.

Issue (iii): whether the Government proved that the land was held on a lease for ninety-nine years which had expired in March 1930, entitling it to resume possession

Analysis: The printed survey records, index extracts, wall maps, contemporaneous entries, and surrounding circumstances were treated as admissible and reliable public records. They supported the finding that the land was leasehold Government land, that the lease was for ninety-nine years, and that the term expired in March 1930. On that basis, the Government's notice to vacate was not ultra vires and the land became resumable on expiry of the term.

Conclusion: The Government proved the ninety-nine-year lease and its expiry, and was entitled to resume possession.

Final Conclusion: The decree of the trial court was set aside, the plaintiffs were denied the reliefs claimed, and the suit was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory presumption and long possession do not aid a claimant whose possession is not shown to have a lawful origin, and where public revenue records and surrounding circumstances establish leasehold tenure, the Government may resume possession on expiry of the term and a notice issued under the revenue code is appealable and not ultra vires.

---