Supreme Court Upholds High Court Decision on Property Dispute

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, dismissing the appeal and awarding costs to the respondents. The High Court correctly found that the respondents did not disclaim the appellant's title or establish a landlord-tenant relationship, thus not invoking forfeiture under Section 111(g) of the Transfer of Property Act. The respondents' claims of adverse possession and ownership were not clear disclaimers of title.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Ejectment of respondents based on inheritance and alleged lease.
2. Validity and proof of lease deed from 1905.
3. Relationship of landlord and tenant.
4. Application of Section 111(g) of the Transfer of Property Act.
5. Adverse possession claim by respondents.
6. Plea of forfeiture due to sale of land by respondents.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Ejectment of Respondents Based on Inheritance and Alleged Lease
The appellant-plaintiff filed a suit for ejectment, claiming the property belonged to his grandfather, Guru Naunihal Singh, from whom he inherited the land. The grandfather allegedly leased the land to the respondents' predecessors in 1905. The respondents sold portions of the land in 1967 and 1968, which the appellant claimed led to forfeiture of the lease.

2. Validity and Proof of Lease Deed from 1905
The trial court found that the original lease deed was not produced, only a copy over 30 years old was submitted, which was admissible in evidence. The copy indicated a lease was executed in favor of Guru Naunihal Singh, but there was no proof of rent payment. The absence of rent receipts suggested no landlord-tenant relationship. The appellate court inferred payment of rent until 1966-67 based on Jamabandi entries, but these entries are not proof of title, only statements for revenue purposes.

3. Relationship of Landlord and Tenant
The trial court concluded there was no evidence of a landlord-tenant relationship, as the respondents had been holding the land as trespassers since 1955 and had become owners by adverse possession. The appellate court, however, found the respondents were tenants at sufferance and no hostile assertion of title had occurred, thus adverse possession did not apply.

4. Application of Section 111(g) of the Transfer of Property Act
The High Court held that the appellant's claim of forfeiture under Section 111(g) failed because the lease deed did not prohibit alienation of the land or provide a right of re-entry for breach of such a covenant. The only ground for re-entry was non-payment of rent, which was not the basis of the suit. The respondents' claim of ownership and adverse possession did not constitute an unequivocal renunciation of the lease.

5. Adverse Possession Claim by Respondents
The respondents claimed adverse possession, asserting they had not paid rent since 1905 and had been paying property tax as owners. The High Court found no clear proof or finding that the respondents had knowledge of the 1905 lease or had received any notice under Section 111(g). The entries in the Jamabandi did not establish proof of rent payment, and there was no evidence of rent receipts. The respondents' plea of ownership under statutory law was not a clear disclaimer of title.

6. Plea of Forfeiture Due to Sale of Land by Respondents
The appellant argued that the respondents' sale of land constituted forfeiture under Section 111(g). The High Court rejected this, stating the respondents did not unequivocally set up adverse possession or title in themselves. The plea of forfeiture was not available to the appellant as the lease's terms did not prohibit the sale of the property.

Conclusion
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's findings, dismissing the appeal with costs of Rs. 2,500. The High Court correctly interpreted the pleadings and evidence, concluding that the respondents did not unequivocally disclaim the appellant's title or establish a landlord-tenant relationship, thus not invoking forfeiture under Section 111(g) of the Transfer of Property Act. The respondents' claims of adverse possession and ownership under statutory law were not clear disclaimers of title.

---