NDLI: Nand Ram (d) Through Lrs. & Ors. Vs. Jagdish Prasad (d) Through Lrs.

Content Provider	Supreme Court of India
e-ISSN	30484839
Language	English
Access Restriction	NDLI
Subject Keyword	Limitation Act 1963 Land Acquisition Act 1894
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Law Judgement
Jurisdiction	India
Act(s) Referred	Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894) Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963)
Case(s) Referred	Referred Case 0 Referred Case 1 Referred Case 2 Referred Case 3 Referred Case 4 Referred Case 5 Referred Case 6 Referred Case 7
Case Type	Appeal
Court	Supreme Court of India
Disposal Nature	Appeal Allowed
Headnote	Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Land given on lease for 20 years to the defendant with a clause that plaintiff-lessor could seek ejectment of the defendant-lessee from the leased premises, only in case the rent for one year remained in arrear – After six years, entire leased land acquired under s.4 of the Land Acquisition Act – Land Acquisition Collector determined market value of the acquired land – Dispute with regard to apportionment of compensation referred to the Reference Court – Lessee claimed share in the compensation on the ground that they were deprived of the right to retain possession of leased land for the unexpired period of 14 years of the lease in their favour – Reference court held that the lessee had not paid rent for more than 12 months and, thus, in accordance with clause 9 of the lease deed, the lease had come to an end and therefore, the lessee had no right to claim a share in the compensation payable for the land leased to them – After about two years, a part of the land acquired stood de-notified and the said land continued to be in possession of the lessee – Thereafter, the lessor filed suit for possession of the said land i.e. the land leased that continued in possession with the lessee post the de-notification – Trial court decreed the suit – In appeal against the said judgment, the lessee sought amendment of his written statement asserting that the suit was barred by limitation under Art. 66 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act – First Appellate Court did not permit the lessee to amend the written statement but the question of limitation was allowed to be raised on the basis of material available on record – First Appellate Court did not find any merit in the argument raised by the lessee that the award passed by the Reference Court operated as res judicata – First Appellate Court found that the plea of forfeiture was totally inconsistent and contradictory to the averments made in the original statement – High Court allowed the second appeal filed by lessee holding that the finding recorded in the award that upon non-payment of rent for 12 months, the lease had come to an end, had attained finality – Therefore, such finding would operate as res judicata – High Court further held that period of limitation under Art.67 of the Limitation Act is 12 years, the period for which commences from the date when the tenancy is determined and since the tenancy was determined in 1960, the suit filed in 1981 was beyond the period of limitation – Hence instant appeal – Held: The issue in the proceedings under s.30 of the Act, before the Reference Court was restricted to the apportionment of compensation, consequent to the acquisition of the leased land – The issue was restricted to the payment of compensation on account of the unexpired period of lease and issue was not the title of the lessor or the eviction of the lessee – Before the award was announced by the Reference Court, part of the land acquired was de-notified – After denotification of the land, the lessee continued to be in possession and the title of the lessor as owners stood restored – De-notification under s.48 of the Act is possible only when possession has not been taken and the land has not been vested in the State – Once the land was de-notified, the status of the parties as they existed prior to s.4 notification stood revived – Finding returned in the award of the Reference Court that the lease stood determined on account of non-payment of rent was a finding made by the Reference Court for a limited purpose i.e. not to accept the lessee’s claim for compensation – Such finding cannot be binding on the parties in a suit for possession based on title or as a lessor against a lessee – Limitation Act, 1963 – Art.67.Limitation Act, 1963: Art.67 – Suit filed within 12 years of the determination of the tenancy by efflux of time – The defendant has not proved forfeiture of tenancy prior to the expiry of lease period – Mere non-payment of rent does not amount to forfeiture of tenancy – It only confers a right on the landlord to seek possession – The plaintiffs filed a suit for possession against the defendant on the basis of determination of tenancy, such suit is governed by Art.67 alone – In view of this, the suit for possession would not be covered by Art.65 since there is a specific article i.e. Art.67 dealing with right of the lessor to claim possession after determination of tenancy – The appellants-plaintiffs claimed possession from the defendant alleging him to be the tenant and that he had not handed over the leased property after determination of the lease – Therefore, such suit would fall within Art.67 of the Limitation Act – Such suit having been filed within 12 years of the determination of lease by efflux of time, the same is within the period of limitation.Res Judicata: s.11 of the Code bars the subsequent Court to try any suit or issue which has been directly and substantially issue in a former suit – The issue before the Reference Court was apportionment of compensation and such issue having been decided against the defendant, the reference to notice for termination of tenancy does not operate as res judicata – Therefore, the finding recorded by the High Court that the order of the Reference Court operated as res judicata was clearly not sustainable – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – s.11.Lease: Status of tenant – Tenant at sufferance or tenant holding over – The defendant was inducted as a lessee for a period of 20 years – The lessor had a right to seek possession in terms of clause 9 of the lease deed – The mere fact that the lessor had not chosen to exercise that right will not foreclose the rights of the lessor as owner of the property leased – After the expiry of lease period, and in the absence of payment of rent by the lessee, the status of the lessee will be that of tenant at sufferance and not a tenant holding over – s.116 of the TP Act confers the status of a tenant holding over on a yearly or monthly basis keeping in view the purpose of the lease, only if the lessor accepts the payment of lease money – If the lessor does not accept the lease money, the status of the lessee would be that of tenant at sufferance.Estoppel: When lessee continued to be in possession of the land leased by way of registered lease deed and admitted the ownership of the lessor before the Reference Court, it operates as estoppel against the lessee in respect of the title of the lessor.Adverse Possession: Respondent claimed adverse possession and claimed possession as owner against a person, who has inducted him as tenant – The respondent was to prove his continuous, open and hostile possession to the knowledge of true owner for a continuous period of 12 years – The respondent has not led any evidence of hostile possession to the knowledge of true owner at any time before or after the award of the reference Court nor he has surrendered possession before asserting hostile, continuous and open title to the knowledge of the true owner – The question of adverse possession without admitting the title of the real owner is not tenable.
Judge	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Hemant Gupta
Neutral Citation	2020 INSC 315
Petitioner	Nand Ram (d) Through Lrs. & Ors.
Respondent	Jagdish Prasad (d) Through Lrs.
SCR	[2020] 4 S.C.R. 1009
Judgement Date	2020-03-19
Case Number	9918

Sl.	Authority	Responsibilities	Communication Details
1	Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education	Sanctioning Authority	https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives
2	Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project	https://www.iitkgp.ac.in
3	National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in
4	Project PI / Joint PI	Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon
5	Website/Portal (Helpdesk)	Queries regarding NDLI and its services	support@ndl.gov.in
6	Contents and Copyright Issues	Queries related to content curation and copyright issues	content@ndl.gov.in
7	National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club)	Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach	clubsupport@ndl.gov.in
8	Digital Preservation Centre (DPC)	Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books	dpc@ndl.gov.in
9	IDR Setup or Support	Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops	idr@ndl.gov.in

Nand Ram (d) Through Lrs. & Ors. Vs. Jagdish Prasad (d) Through Lrs.

Please Log-in to view this content

Sri Radhy Shyam (d) Through Lrs. & Ors. Vs. State of U.p. & Ors.

Hamid Ali Khan (d) Through Lrs. & Anr. Vs. State of U.p. & Ors.

Shri Uttam Chand (d) Through Lrs. Vs. Nathu Ram (d) Through Lrs. & Ors.

Manohar Lal (d) By Lrs. Vs. Ugrasen (d) By Lrs. & Ors.

Chandrashekar (d) By Lrs. & Ors. Vs. Land Acquisition Officer & Anr.

Madishetti Bala Ramul (d) By Lrs. Vs. The Land Acquisition Officer

Union of India Vs. Munshi Ram (dead) By Lrs. and Ors.

Atma Singh (died) Through Lrs. & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana & Anr

New Okhla Industrial Development Authority Vs. Harkishan (dead) Through Lrs and Ors.

Nand Ram (d) Through Lrs. & Ors. Vs. Jagdish Prasad (d) Through Lrs.

Nand Ram (d) Through Lrs. & Ors. Vs. Jagdish Prasad (d) Through Lrs.

Please Log-in to view this content

Similar Documents

Sri Radhy Shyam (d) Through Lrs. & Ors. Vs. State of U.p. & Ors.

Hamid Ali Khan (d) Through Lrs. & Anr. Vs. State of U.p. & Ors.

Shri Uttam Chand (d) Through Lrs. Vs. Nathu Ram (d) Through Lrs. & Ors.

Manohar Lal (d) By Lrs. Vs. Ugrasen (d) By Lrs. & Ors.

Chandrashekar (d) By Lrs. & Ors. Vs. Land Acquisition Officer & Anr.

Madishetti Bala Ramul (d) By Lrs. Vs. The Land Acquisition Officer

Union of India Vs. Munshi Ram (dead) By Lrs. and Ors.

Atma Singh (died) Through Lrs. & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana & Anr

New Okhla Industrial Development Authority Vs. Harkishan (dead) Through Lrs and Ors.

Nand Ram (d) Through Lrs. & Ors. Vs. Jagdish Prasad (d) Through Lrs.