1927 (2) TMI 18 - HC - Indian Laws

Court affirms defendants' ownership of shamlat land, rejects adverse possession claim.

The High Court held that the defendants acquired title in the shamlat patti, citing the revenue Court decree as res judicata. The partition Court order ... - Issues:- Claim of proprietary title over 933 acres of land- Defendants' acquisition of title in shamlat patti- Res judicata based on revenue Court decree- Res judicata based on partition Court order- Adverse possession claim by plaintiffs- Interpretation of auction sale in 1900Analysis:The plaintiffs filed a suit seeking a declaration of their proprietary title over 933 acres of land in a khata, claiming previous zamindari rights and adverse possession against the defendants. The trial Court held that the defendants acquired title in the shamlat patti due to their purchase of interests in principal khatas and dismissed the suit. The Subordinate Judge found in favor of the plaintiffs, citing the revenue Court decree under Section 164 as res judicata. The High Court noted that the revenue Court's decision on title operated as res judicata, as it was deemed equivalent to a civil Court decision. The Court referenced previous cases to support this interpretation.Regarding the partition Court order, the High Court disagreed with the lower Courts, asserting that the order did constitute res judicata in favor of the defendants. The order, stating that shamlat was sold, was deemed a declaration of the auction-purchaser's title in the shamlat land. The Court concluded that the order amounted to a decision under Section 111(1)(c) and operated as res judicata against the plaintiffs, similar to the Section 164 decree against the defendants.The High Court emphasized that when faced with conflicting decrees as res judicata, the later decree should prevail, citing relevant case law. Thus, the Court found the lower appellate Court erred in deciding in favor of the plaintiffs based on res judicata. Additionally, the Court rejected the plaintiffs' adverse possession claim, noting that rent receipts did not establish adverse possession due to their roles as lambardars and co-sharers. The Court also opined that the auction sale in 1900 vested an interest in the defendants in the shamlat patti, as the interest was appurtenant to their interests in the principal pattis.Ultimately, the High Court allowed the appeal, restoring the trial Court's decree in favor of the defendants and awarding costs to the appellants.