2019 (7) TMI 1990 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court affirms ownership of Inam lands, rejects limitations argument, and upholds civil court jurisdiction.

The Supreme Court upheld the lower courts' decisions in a case involving a suit for declaration of land as Inam lands of a Dargah and possession against ... Restoration of possession of land - time limitation - failure to prove that the suit land was Inam land or the plaintiffs are Inamdars - HELD THAT:- Nothing has been brought on record to show that prior to 29.01.1973 the land was entered in the name of the Trust. In fact, as per the pleadings of the defendants a change report had been filed before the Assistant Charity Commissioner, Latur and the said authority, without issuing notices to the Inamdars/Mutawalis, allowed the said application on 29.01.1973. The plaintiffs had no knowledge of this application but on the basis of this order the Government handed over the possession of the land to the Trust. It was only after the Trust came into the possession of the land that the mutation entry (Exhibit No. 115) was made in favour of the Trust. In a suit filed for possession based on title the Plaintiff is bound to prove his title and pray for a declaration that he is the owner of the suit land because his suit on the basis of title cannot succeed unless he is held to have some title over the land. However, the main relief is of possession and, therefore, the suit will be governed by Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963. This Article deals with a suit for possession of immovable property or any interest therein based on title and the limitation is 12 years from the date when possession of the land becomes adverse to the plaintiff - In the instant case, even if the case of the defendants is taken at the highest, the possession of the defendants became adverse to the plaintiffs only on 19.08.1978 when possession was handed over to the defendants. Therefore, there is no merit in this contention of the Appellants. No application was filed Under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for leading additional evidence before the first appellate court or even before the High Court. Even the applications filed do not set out any reasons for not filing these documents earlier and do not meet the requirements of Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Hence, the applications are rejected and the documents cannot be taken into consideration. Appeal dismissed. Issues:1. Suit for declaration of land as Inam lands and possession against defendants.2. Appeal against trial court's dismissal of suit.3. Appeal before High Court challenging first appellate court's decision.4. Dispute over the status of plaintiffs as Inamdars or Mutawalis.5. Jurisdiction of civil court in deciding the suit.6. Admissibility of additional documents filed during appeal.Analysis:1. The suit was filed seeking declaration of certain lands as Inam lands of a Dargah and possession against defendants. Trial court dismissed the suit citing limitation, non-joinder of parties, and failure to prove ownership by plaintiffs. District Judge reversed the judgment, holding plaintiffs as Inamdars and entitled to possession. High Court upheld the decree but modified the status of plaintiffs to descendants of Mutawalis.2. Appellants challenged the High Court's decision, arguing against the plaintiffs' proof of land ownership and the suit's limitation. The Supreme Court upheld the lower courts' findings on ownership, emphasizing evidence of land grants to the Dargah since 1915. The limitation issue was dismissed, noting the possession was adverse only from 1978, well within the 12-year limit for possession suits.3. The contention that the High Court granted relief not prayed for by the plaintiffs was rejected, citing precedents allowing for the grant of lesser versions of relief claimed. The court affirmed the jurisdiction of the civil court to decide the suit, emphasizing the nature of the dispute over Dargah properties, not personal rights.4. The status of plaintiffs as Mutawalis was established based on historical evidence and official records, supporting their claim to manage Dargah affairs. The court dismissed the appellants' attempt to introduce additional documents during the appeal, noting the lack of justification for not presenting them earlier and rejecting the applications.5. In conclusion, the Supreme Court found no merit in the appeal and dismissed it, upholding the lower courts' decisions regarding land ownership, limitation, relief granted, jurisdiction, and the status of plaintiffs. The pending applications for additional documents were rejected, and the appeal was disposed of accordingly.