plaintiff, who is in possession of the suit property, can get injunction restraining the defendant from disturbing his possession.,

 Once the finding of lawful possession goes in favour of the plaintiff, that should be the end of the matter, and, therefore, it is only to be seen as to whether the plaintiff would be entitled to an injunction as prayed by her, of restraining the defendants from dispossessing her otherwise than by due course of law. The suit, as has been filed, is perfectly legal. It has been held by the Division Bench of our own Court in Fakirabhai Bhagwandas v. Maganlal Haribhai that it is not necessary for a

person claiming injunction, to prove his title to the suit land. It is sufficient if he proves that he is in lawful possession of the land and his possession is invaded or threatened to be invaded by a person who has no title whatever. The legal position is settled by a view taken by the Apex Court in M. Kallappa Setty v. M. V. Lakshminara-yana Rao , wherein the Supreme Court held that the plaintiff, who is in possession of the suit property, can, on the strength of his possession, pesist interference from defendant who has no better title than himself and get injunction restraining the defendant from disturbing his possession.

 person in possession can be evicted only in due process of law. Even the rightful owner cannot eject him with force. If he cannot be evicted with force, he continues to be in possession and he can resist invasion of his possession by every one including the rightful owner. If the rightful owner threatens his peaceful possession, he can approach Courts of law and pray the equitable relief of injunction to protect his possession.

Bombay High Court

Smt. Sarladevi Widow Of Kundanlal ... vs Shailesh S/O Gourishankar Namdeo on 1 November, 1995

Equivalent citations: AIR 1996 Bom 98

Bench: V Sirpurkar

1. This second appeal is filed by the original plaintiff and thereby she challenges the concurrent judgment of the trial as well as the lower Appellate Court dismissing her suit.
2. This was s suit for declaration and permanent injunction. By this civil suit, the plaintiff had sought a declaration that she could not be evicted without following the due process of law from plot No. 18 described in Schedule appended to the plaint. She had also sought an injunction against the defendants restraining them permanently from dispossessing her from the suit property. In short, the plaintiff had contended that she was a widow of one Shri K. L. Bandawar who was a member of the Income-tax Employees Cooperative Society Limited, Mount Road, Nagpur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Society'), being its share-holder. She had contended that the Society had acquired about 9 acres of land for forming the plots therein to be sold to its members. Her husband had paid a sum of Rs.2,000/- on 13-12-1965, vide Receipt No. 223 wherein Rs. 50/- were deposited towards the costs of the share and the remaining amount of Rs. 1,950/- was deposited towards the cost of the plot. She contended that in pursuance of this, her husband was allotted plot No. 18 on 15-12-1965 and he was placed in possession of the said plot. She contended that after this, K. L. Bandawar remained in possession of the suit plot till he expired on 14-7-1980 and thereafter, she continued to be in possession of the said plot and also all the documents in respect of the said plot executed by the Society in her husband's favour. She, thus contended that she was in continuous possession of the said plot. She contended that the Society had become defunct in the year 1976. However, the defendant No. 2, who was posing as an office bearer of the Society, had approached the plaintiff on 3-1-1985 and had asked her to get her name mutated in the Corporation record and he had also given No Objection Certificate on behalf of the Society for such mutation, by addressing a letter to the Assessor, Nagpur Municipal Corporation, Nagpur. He had also given a No Objection for releasing the plot No. 18 which was standing in the name of late K. L. Bandawar and as such the plot was released in the name of the plaintiff by the Nagpur Improvement Trust, Nagpur. She further contended that the Society had become defunct and its registration was cancelled by the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Nagpur, vide letter dated 30-6-1979, and there was nobody looking after the affairs of this dead Society, nor was there any meeting held nor was any resolution passed by the Society.
3. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant No. 2, without the knowledge or the consent of the shareholders including the plaintiff, got executed the deed of Power of Attorney in his favour from some shareholders and in that capacity, though he had no authority or power to deal with the property of the Society, started some dubious dealings. In that, she contended that no transactions done by the defendant No. 2 were in any manner binding on her. She had asserted that she was in possession of the suit property peacefully and had fenced the boundary by barbed fencing and has also erected a temporary shed on the same, and that the defendant No. 2 was also aware that she was in such possession. She further alleged that in pursuance of this nefarious activities, the defendant No. 2 contracted a sale in favour of defendant No. 1 Shailesh. She contended that she had come to know about this fact from the public notice given by defendant No. 1 through his Advocate, one Shri Gopal Sharma. This public notice was dated 3-2-1987 inviting objections. The plaintiff had, therefore, given a notice to Shri Gopal Sharma, Advocate, that his client defendant No. 1 had no right to deal with the suit property as the defendant No. 1 had never become the owner of the suit property and the suit property belonged to her. The plaintiff further claimed that she had given the public notice in daily newspapers HITAVADA and LOKMAT that she was in exclusive possession of the said property and, in fact, it was her husband, Shri K. L. Bandawar, who was the original allottee of the plot and who was placed in possession thereof by the Society. She, therefore, claimed that any transaction in respect of this plot would not be binding on her. This public notice is dated 5-2-19S7, according to the plaintiff. She further claimed that probably because of this one Wasudeo Vithobaji Rakhshak, who wanted to purchase the said plot from defendant No. 1, did not purchase the plot.
4. The plaintiff had further raised a plea that her husband was put in possession of the suit plot in pursuance of an agreement between himself and the Society and as such the defendant No. 1 had no right whatsoever to interfere with the possession of the plaintiff on the basis of his illegal sale-deed taken from defendant No. 2. She claimed that she was threatened by defendant Nos. 1 and 2 of the dispossession and, therefore, had filed a complaint to the Police Station on 5-4-1987. She further claimed that there was an attempt to dispossess her on 8-10-1987 and the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 also tried to dismantle the fenced compound and cut the barbed wire fencing and, therefore, she had reported the matter to the Police Station, Sonegaon, on 9-10-1987 as also on 11-10-1987. She has further averred that after the police came on the spot, it became known that some antisocial elements were sent by defendant Nos. 3 and 4 to dispossess her from the plot as they claimed to have purchased the same from defendant No. 1. On this basis, therefore, she claimed that since her husband was in possession of the plot being an allottee from the Society and since after her husband's death, she continued to be in peaceful possession of the said plot, her husband's possession would be relatable to part performance of contract between himself and the Society and as such she could not be dispossessed by the defendants, muchless defendant Nos. 1, 3 and 4, as they had no basis whatsoever to dispossess her.
5. Detailed written-statements were filed by the defendants. The defendant No. 1, by his written-statement, adopted the written-statement submitted by the defendant No. 2 and, additionally, also claimed that the suit was not maintainable merely for the declaration without seeking the relief of specific performance. He pointed out that the claim of the plaintiff had become time barred and she was not entitled to take any benefit of Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act. His further case is that, the plaintiff had not inherited any membership rights from K. L. Bandawar as, in fact, no rights were created in his favour nor was he entitled to claim the suit property as he had failed to fulfil the conditions mentioned in the notices dated 12-6-1964 and 25-12-1965. It was further claimed that in view of the non-compliance with these notices and because of failure on the part of said K. L. Bandawar to pay the instalments as mentioned in the said letters; notices, the membership any any rights flowing therefrom had automatically terminated. He claimed that he had become the owner of the suit property since there was a valid sale-deed in his favour from defendant No. 2 and as such he has perfectly justified in selling the suit property to defendant Nos. 3 and 4 by a registered sale-deed dated 9-10-1987.
6. The defendant No. 2, who died during the pendency of the suit, had also filed a separate written-statement. He admitted that Shri K. L. Bandawar had made the payment of Rs. 2000/- vide Receipt No, 223 dated 13-12-1965 and by a notice dated 25-12-1965, plot No. 18 was allotted in his favour. However, he claimed that it was only a provisional allotment and was subject to the rules and conditions framed by the Society and that the balance of the cost of the plot was to be made in two instalments, and it was specifically stipulated that failure to pay the instalments would result in the cancellation of the allotment, and since Shri K. L. Bandawar failed to pay the entrance fee, cost of the remaining share and the balance of the cost of the plot, the provisional allotment made in his favour stood cancelled. However, defendant No. 2 specifically denied that Shri K.L. Bandawar was put in possession of the said plot. He claimed that the possession was to be given to the allottee only after the full cost of the plot was paid and the registered sale-deed was executed in favour of the allottee, which was not done in the case of Shri K. L. Bandawar. The possession of Shri K. L. Bandawar and after him of the plaintiff was, therefore, denied. He claimed further that he never approached the plaintiff as claimed by her on 3-1-1995. On the other hand, in fact, the plaintiff's son, who was an employee in the Nagpur Municipal Corporation, had approached him as he was authorised by the share- holders of the Society to represent them by the authority letter dated 16-5-1983 and since there was a General Power of Attorney in his favour dated 16-10-1985. It was contended further that the son of the plaintiff sought a No Objection from him representing him that the said plot was already sold to his father and a registered sale-deed was also executed in his favour, and believing his words, and since the defendant No. 2 had no record of the Society with him, he issued a No Objection Certificate. Thus, the said No Objection Certificate was issued in favour of the plaintiff because of the fraud and misrepresentation played by the son of the plaintiff. He contended that in the similar manner, the plot was got released from the Nagpur Improvement Trust. He denied that the Society was defunct and was not in existence. He claimed that the cancellation of the registration of the Society was unlawful. He also denied the further allegations that there were no meetings held, nor any resolution passed by the Society. He claimed that he was appointed as an Attorney as empowered by the share-holders. He also denied that the plot was ever in possession of the plaintiff or her husband. He denied the claim of the plaintiff that he had no locus standi to execute the sale-deed in favour of the defendant No. 1. The allegations of the plaintiff that he and the defendant No. 1 had threatened her to dispossess her from the suit property and tried to interfere with barbed wire fencing and her name plate, were also denied. He claimed that on 1-10-1986 when he executed the sale-deed in favour of defendant No. 1, he put him in physical possession of the plot on 2-10-1986. The suit plot was measured and the defendant No. I fixed pegs and poles on the boundary of the plot. He claimed that at that time there was neither any name-plate of the plaintiff nor barbed wire fencing on the plot. The allegation that he and defendant No. 1 tried to dispossess the plaintiff with the help of some anti-social elements on 8-10-1987 was also denied by him.
7. In his specific pleadings, the defendant No. 2 reiterated his earlier pleadings and claimed that any person desiring to become member of the Society, would become member paying Rs. 100/- being cost of two shares at the rate of Rs. 5/- (Rs. 50/- ?) per share plus Rs. 5/- as entrance fees, and any member, who was desirous of acquiring a plot, was required to deposit 50% of the price of the requisite size of the plot, as the price varied according to the size of the plot. He pointed out that thereafter the provisional allotment was made by the Society and the balance amount was to be paid to the Society on the fixed date, the failure of which would result into the cancellation of the membership. He pleaded in para 16 of his written-statement that Shri K. L. Bandawar had expressed his desire to acquire a plot and paid Rs. 2000/- on 13-12-1965 as per the details shown in the receipt. He had not paid the entrance fee for membership and had purchased only one share, though he was required to purchase two shares. However, he was provisionally allotted the plot on 15-12-1965 along with others, subject to the condition that the balance amount would be paid in two instalments by 15th April, 1986. The last chance for becoming members of the Society was given up to 10-2-1966, but Shri K. L. Bandawar did not enroll himself as a member, nor did he pay membership fee Rs. 5/-, nor did he purchase two shares as required and, therefore, in terms of the notice dated 25-12-1965, his allotment stood cancelled. He claimed that the Society came to know some time in 1983 that its registration was cancelled, which order was illegal and, therefore, for carrying out the business of the society and managing its affairs as regards its property, he was given an authority letter by the share-holders, authorising him to sell any land or plot owned by the Society. In pursuance of this letter, a General Power of Attorney was executed by the share-holders on 16-10-1985. It was in pursuance of this authority that he had sold the suit plot to defendant No. 1 by registered sale-deed dated 1-10-1986 and placed him in actual and physical possession and got his name mutated in the records of the Nagpur Municipal Corporation as also in City Survey records. He pointed out that the defendant No. 1 then transferred the said plot for valuable consideration to defendant Nos. 3 and4 by registered sale-deed dated 9-10-1987. He pointed out that the plaintiff had no right, title or interest in the suit plot.
8. Defendant Nos. 3 and 4 have reiterated these pleadings and claimed to be in possession of the suit plot, in pursuance of the sale-deed dated 9-10-1987 from the defendant No. 1. Additionally they claimed that in fact Shri K. L. Bandawar was never allotted the plot and, in fact, it was allotted to one Shri P. N. Dhomne. Defendant Nos. 3 and 4 claimed that K. L. Bandawar had no such right to pass the plot to the plaintiff and that they were put in possession of the said plot by the defendant No. 1. On 9-10-1987 when the possession was delivered to them, the defendant Nos. 3 and 4 put their barbed wire fencing on the said plot. They claimed that there is a hut which shows their possession. They claimed that the kuchcha construction was that of the Society which passed the same along with the plot to the defendant No. 1 Shailes and who, in his turn, passed the right, title and interest thereof to them by sale-deed dated 9-10-1987. They have also reiterated the right of the defendant No. 2 as the agent of the share-holders to sell the property to defendant No. 1, thereby supporting their own title. They also claimed that the Civil Court had no right to try the suit as this was a dispute between the Co-operative Society and its members and as such it was covered by Section 91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act.
9. On these pleadings, the parties led evidence. The plaintiff examined her son P.W. 1 Ashok who held General Power of Attorney from her. She also examined her grandson, P.W. 2 Dharmendra who had taken the photopraphs of the property to show that the barbed wire fencing was being broken by the men of the defendants. A neighbouring plot owner, namely, Shri Dnyanchandra (P.W. 3) was also examined by the plaintiff to show the factum of possession. She also examined the two employees from the Nagpur Improvement Trust's Office and others from Postal Department to prove entries in her favour and also to show that notices were sent to her at Exhibits 85 and 86.
10. On behalf of the defendants, common evidence was led, whereby the father of the defendant No. 1 Gourishankar (D.W. 1) was examined for proving the issue of possession of the suit plot; so also defendant No. 3 Ramchandra entered the witness-box to support the evidence of D.W. 1 Gourishankar. One Photographer, D.W. 3 Narendra and one original member of the Society, namely, D.W. 4 Trimbak were also examined to show that the possession was not with the plaintiff and that K. L. Bandawar had never received the possession, D. W. 5 Vasant was examined to prove the No Objection for the transfer in favour of defendant No. 1 from defendant No. 2. He also proved further documents regarding no objection given for the transfer by defendant No. 1 in favour of defendant Nos. 3 and 4. D.W. 6 Bapurao and D.W. 7 Ashok Nanoti are from the City Survey Office and Nagpur Municipal Corporation respectively, who proved the documents regarding the mutation, while D.W. 8 Kashinath is an employee of the Nagpur Improvement Trust.
11. In the documentary evidence, as has already been pointed out, the plaintiff filed the original allotment letter dated 25-12-1965 and the earlier receipt dated 13-12-1965 (Exhibits 126 and 127 respectively). The plaintiff also filed and proved No Objection Certificates given in the year 1985 in her favour by the defendant No. 2. The photographs and negatives as also the mutations in Nagpur Improvement Trust as well as Nagpur Municipal Corporation have been proved by the plaintiff, and most important, the plaintiff has also brought on record the police reports made by her complaining the dispossession at the instance of defendant Nos. 1 and 2, which are three in number.
The defendants have brought on record, firstly, the letter of authority issued by the 36 share-holders in favour of defendant No 2 as also General Power of Attorney executed by them. The sale-deeds executed by defendant No. 2 in favour of defendant No. 1 as also defendantNo. 1 in favour of defendant Nos. 3 and 4 have also been brought on record and proved. They have also proved the mutation entries in the records of City Surveyor, Nagpur Improvement Trust and Nagpur Municipal Corporation, which speak of the ownership on the part of defendant No. 1 and defendant Nos. 3 and 4. There are other documents which have been filed like photographs and the negatives thereof to prove the possession of the defendants.
12. The trial Court, firstly, held that K. L. Bandawar was not a member and though he had made a payment to the Society of Rs. 2000/-, there was only a provisional allotment in his favour which did not give him any rights. The trial Court held that Bandawar was never in possession of the suit plot and, therefore, there was no question of the plaintiff coming into possession after his death in the year 1980, The trial Court, therefore, held that there was no question of the application of Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, that the plaintiff had not proved that Shri K. L. Bandawar was put in possession of the suit property in pursuance of the contract which was not in writing. According to the trial Court, there was no question of any contract between the Society and Shri K. L. Bandawar. The trial Court held that the defendant No. 2 had a perfect authority on behalf of the share-holders to transfer the property in favour of defendant No. 1 and as such the transfer made by him for valuable consideration of Rs. 48,000/ -was good and legally valid transfer. The trial Court, therefore, held that the transfer by defendant No. 1 in favour of defendant Nos. 3 and 4 was also valid transfer, and in that view of the matter, the suit itself was not maintainable as it was a suit for an injunction against the true owners of the said property. The trial Court also additionally held that the suit was not maintainable under Section 164 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, though at later point of time this plea is completely ignored and forsaken at the stage of appeal. In view of its findings on fact, the trial Court dismissed the suit.
13. In appeal, the lower appellate Court has more or the less confirmed the findings of the trial Court by holding that the plaintiff was not able to prove her possession or prior to her, her husband's possession over the suit property. The appellate Court has also held the transfers of the suit plot from defendant No. 2 to defendant No. 1 and, ultimately, from defendant No. 1 to defendant Nos. 3 and 4, to be legally valid transfers. The appellate Court has, therefore, confirmed the judgment of the trial Court in toto.
14. Shri S. R. Deshpande, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant-plaintiff, has strenuously contended that both the Courts below are completely in error in returning the finding of possession against the plaintiff. He has pointed out that in appreciating the evidence regarding the actual possession of the suit plot right from 1965 till the filing of the suit in the year 1987, both the Courts below have completely ignored not only the pleadings of the parties but also the damaging admissions made by the witnesses. He has pointed out that there are glaring contradictions between the versions of the defendants' witnesses as regards the question of actual possession. His further contention is that the Courts below have also completely left out of consideration some material pieces of evidence, which was documentary in nature and which went to prove the actual possession. His further case is that if the finding of actual possession of the plot is incorrect, then further finding of non-application of Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act is also incorrect, as both the Courts below have based their finding regarding the application of Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act only on the finding of possession. He contends that, in fact, the Courts below have not considered the true effect of Exhibit 126 which was an allotment letter-cum-notice which itself could be said to be a writing from which a contract could be spelt out. He also reiterates that Exhibit 126, which was nothing but an agreement in writing directly refers to the possession given to Shri K. L. Bandawar in pursuance thereof and, therefore, this would be a case completely coverable under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act and, according to him, the plaintiff would be in a position to file the present suit which would be in the nature of a suit in defence of her possession. He points out that the plaintiff is not using Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act as a sword in this case but is only using it as a shield to defend herself from the onslaught of defendants who are trying to dispossess her. He further argues that even if Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act is held not to be applicable for any reason, if ultimately he is able to prove that the plaintiff was in possession of the property right from 1965 up to 1987, then she would be in a position to claim an injunction even against the true owners, let apart against the person like defendants who, in fact, had no title as their predecessor, defendant No. 2 himself had no title to pass it to defendant No. 1 and defendant Nos. 3 and 4. He, therefore, contends that even in the absence of the protective shield of Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, the plaintiff would be perfectly justified in claiming the injunction to safeguard her possession restraining the defendants from unlawfully dispossessing her.
15. On the other hand Shri. Deopujari, learned Counsel for the respondents-defendants contends that in the second appeal, this Court should be slow to disturb the finding of fact as regards the actual possession of the suit property. He further contends that there is nothing on record to show that Shri K. L. Bandawar was placed in possession of the suit property in pursuance of an agreement from which the asserted terms of a contract to be spelt out. He points out that a mere letter-cum-notice like Exhibit 126 could not operate as an agreement and there is nothing on record to show that Shri K. L. Bandawar was actually put in possession in pursuance of that letter, and as such there was no question of Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act. He maintains that since the plaintiff has failed to establish her possession, the suit of necessity must fail. Again, he contends that in this suit, the plaintiff is using the provisions of Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act as a sword and not as a shield and as such the suit could never be held to be maintainable, as is rightly done by the Courts below. In short, he supports the judgments of both the Courts below. On this backdrop, the correctness or otherwise of the judgments has to be tested.
16. Major thrust of the argument of Shri S. R. Deshpande, learned Counsel for the appellant, was on the finding of possession given by the. Court below. Both the Courts below have held that the plaintiff was not in possession on the date of filing of the suit, i.e., on 15-10-1987. The Courts below have also held that plaintiff's husband, Shri K. L. Bandawar was never put in possession by the Society in the year 1965 when he was allotted the suit plot to No. 18 and, therefore, there was no question of his remaining in possession after that, till his death in the year 1980. The question of possession of this plot is extremely important in this suit, as that is the very soul of the suit. If the plaintiff fails to prove that she was in possession on the date of the filing of the suit, the suit would automatically fail as the only prayer made by the plaintiff in the plaint is that of a declaration that the defendants are not entitled to dispossess her without taking recourse to the due process of law, and a further injunction restraining the defendants from dispossessing her. The failure on the part of the plaintiff to prove her possession on the date of filing of the suit would, therefore, automatically result in denial of her claims. Further, that failure would also disentitle her to rely upon the provisions of Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act.
17. It cannot be forgotten that both the Courts below have concurrently found that the possession of the plot never rested with the husband of the plaintiff, Shri K. L. Bandawar, nor did the possession pass to the plaintiff after him. Shri Deshpande strenuously submits that this finding of fact, though concurrent in nature, is patently erroneous and since the said finding was given in total derogation to the evidence on record and in complete ignorance of some vital material available on record, this Court was well justified in examining the finding in this second appeal. He urges that both the Courts below have committed some factual errors in appreciating the oral evidence, inasmuch as they have not even applied their minds to the admitted positions appearing therefrom. Ac- cording to him further, the Courts below have left out of their consideration the important documentary evidence also.
18. It is held in a five-Bench decision by the apex Court in Dheerajlal v. Income-tax Commissioner, Bombay that if the Court of fact, whose decision on a question of fact is final, arrives at such a decision by considering material which is irrelevant to the enquiry or by considering material which is partly relevant and partly irrelevant, or bases its decision partly on conjectures, surmises and suspicions and partly on evidence, then in such a situation clearly an issue of law arises, and in such a case, it is impossible to say to what extent the mind of the Court was affected by the relevant material used by it in arming at its finding, and such a finding is vitiated because of the use of the in admissible material and thereby an issue of law arises.
19. Shri Deshpande argues that in the present case not only some irrelevant material has been considered by the Courts below in deciding the question of possession, but they have also failed to consider some important material which was available to them on record. He further contends that the finding of possession is really based on no evidence and is really a perverse finding. Shri Deshpande further relied upon the Full Bench decision of the Calcutta High Court, wherein the Five-judges-Bench of the Calcutta High Court has considered the scope of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Shri Deshpande submits that even if the question of possession is a question of fact, if while deciding that question which is germane to the very decision of the suit, if the Courts below relied on the irrelevant evidence or refused to consider the evidence which they were bound to consider and if the decision on such question is affected because of this non-appreciation or erroneous appreciation, then as between the parties the question of possession would assume a character of substantial question of law. The ratio in the Full Bench decision of the Calcutta High Court in Ratanlal Bansilal v. Kishorilal Goenka fully supports Shri
Desh- pande's contention. That Judgment apart, the apex Court has also held in Jagdishsingh v. Nathusingh , where Supreme
Court was dealing with the jurisdiction of the High Court to reappreciate the evidence under the amended Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, that where the finding by the Courts of fact is vitiated by non-consideration of relevant evidence or by essentially erroneous approach to the matter, the High Court is not precluded from recording proper findings. The view expressed in the above cited case is further reiterated by the apex Court in Srichand Gupta v. Gulzar Singh , where the apex Court held that the finding of fact is vitiated in law where it is primarily based on inadmissible evidence. If the finding is vitiated because of such inadmissible evidence, it is open to the High Court to reexamine and reappreciate the evidence on record. Similar such view had been expressed by the Supreme Court earlier in Dil Bagrai Punjabi v. Sharad Chandra , where the Supreme Court had held that where in a
suit the lower Courts had without considering any part of the evidence, oral or documentary, come to a finding of fact, the High Court would be right in reversing that finding. Supreme Court further held that the Court was under a duty to examine the entire relevant evidence or records and if it refuses to consider important evidence having direct bearing with the disputed issue and the error which arises is of a magnitude that it gives birth to a substantial question of law, the High Court is fully authorised to set aside the finding. According to Shri Deshpande, the situation is almost similar in the present case.
20. For the purposes of finding on possession, there was a specific issue struck by the trial Court, which was issue No. 3 and worded as below:
"3. Whether plff. proves that suit plot was given in possession of deceased K. L. Bandawar in 1965?"
In fact, the very wording of this issue is not proper. "Whether after K. L. Bandawar, the plaintiff continued to remain in possession" -- should have also been included in this issue, as it was essential for the plaintiff to prove not only that K. L. Bandawar was put in possession in pursuance of the letter dated 13-12-1965, but also that she continued to be in possession till the date of filing of the suit, after the demise of K. L. Bandawar in the year 1980. Be that as it may, the trial Court has, in its discussion, considered the issue only on ringes (sic). Firstly, the trial Court has considered the letter (Exhibit 126) and has observed that there was no evidence to show that Shri K. L. Bandawar had complied with the further conditions mentioned in the said letter (Ex. 126). The trial Court has also considered thereafter the fact that there were letters given by Rajratnam (defendant No. 2) signifying his no objection, they being Exhibits 56 and 57. However, the trial Court has commented that if the authority given to Rajratnam was challenged by the plaintiff, the plaintiff could not rely upon these letters at all and, therefore, these letters would not, in any manner, be helpful to show the possession of the plaintiff. The trial Court has also made a reference to the photographs 76 and 78, which were the photographs by P.W. 2 Dhanremdner showing the name of Bandawar appearing on the walls surrounding the plot. However, he has negatived that circumstance by referring to the photographs Exhibits 121 and 122 taken by the witness of defendant Nos. 3 and 4, from which the name of Smt. Gurjalwar was seen on the bamboo of the hut. He has, therefore, rejected the photographs of the plot as being without significance. He has also held that Shri K. L. Bandawar remained silent and his legal heirs were also silent up to 1985, and it was, for the first time, on 9-4-1985 that the name of K. L. Bandawar appeared on the mutation record of the Municipal Corporation, probably because his son was serving in the Corporation. The trial Court appears to have been impressed by this circumstance. The trial Court, thereafter, referred to the fact that even the evidence of Nyanchandra Tiwari (P.W. 13) was of no significance and it could not show that K. L. Bandawar was actually put in possession of the suit plot in 1965. He, therefore, held that except oral testimony of the plaintiff and her witnesses, there is nothing on record to show that K. L. Bandawar was actually put in possession of plot No. 18. It is to be seen significantly that the trial Court has not considered the further question as to whether K. L. Bandawar up to 1980 and thereafter the plaintiff were in actual possession of the plot in question.
21. While considering issue Nos. 5 and 6, which were the issues regarding the acquisition of possession and title by defendant Nos. 3 and 4, the trial Court has made a reference of Gaurishankar (D.W. 1) to the effect that this witness was a General Power of Attorney Holder on behalf of defendant No. 1 Shailesh and he had proved that he had obtained the possession from D. S. Rajrat-nam in pursuance of the sale-deed (Ex. 104). The trial Court has also made a reference to the assertion of D.W. 2 Ramchandra to the effect that he had claimed that there was a temporary shed and he kept his Chowkidar in that shed by fixing a Tatta around the hut. On this basis, alone, the trial Court has returned the finding that the possession was acquired by the defendant No. 1 first from Shri Rajratnam and thereafter it passed on to defendant Nos. 3 and 4.
22. ThestoryofthelowerappellateCourt is no different. The lower appellate Court has in addition found that there was a contradictory version regarding the erection of barbed wire fencing to the plot in between the pleading and the evidence led on behalf of the plaintiff. The Lower appellate Court also rejected the no-objection letter as having been created after the death of K. L. Bandawar and reiterated that there was no document showing that the plot was given in possession of K. L. Bandawar during his life time and more particularly after 13-12-1965. Ultimately, the lower appellate Court also went on to hold that the suit plot was not given in possession of K. L. Bandawar. The lower appeilate Court has also more or the less repeated the discussion on the evidence as was done by the trial Court on the issues as to whether the possession and title were thereafter acquired by firstly the defendant No. 1 and thereafter by defendant Nos. 3 and 4. The last observation of the lower appellate Court is to this effect:
"Moreover, the appellant plaintiff has not challenged the sale-deed and execution of the above said documents. The appellant plaintiff has not filed a suit for declaration that the above said sale-deed should be declared null and void or cancellation of sale-deed. Until and unless the above sale-deed get cancelled, till that time it cannot be said that defendant Nos. 2 and 3 (probably defendant Nos. 3 and 4) have no right or title over the suit property."
23. This discussion by the trial and the lower appellate Court would go to show that predominantly both the Courts below have firstly tried to assess as to whether K. L. Bandawar, the husband of the plaintiff, was put in possession at all. As a sequel to that finding in negative, they have concluded that, therefore, the possession was transferred along with the title by D. S. Rajratnam, the alleged holder of General Power of Attorney on behalf of share-holders of the Society, in favour of defendant No. 1, in the first instance, and thereafter from him to defendant Nos. 3 and 4 who were subsequent transferees from the defendant No. 1. In fact, as it is already pointed out the very approach of both the Court below has been erroneous. This suit was for the preservation of possession. It has been specifically reiterated by the plaintiff in the plaint that K. L. Bandawar came into the possession in pursuance of the allotment letter, though that allotment letter conferred on him the provisional allotment. The plaintiff further asserted that all through his life till 1980, K. L. Bandawar was in possession and thereafter she continued to be in possession. The plaintiff has also made a categorical allegation that D. S. Rajratnam, who posed himself to be an office-bearer, had no authority whatsoever in fact or in law to act on behalf of the Society and to transfer the suit plot in favour of anybody else, more particularly like defendant No. 1.
24. Now, it is an admitted position that this Society was in existence only up to 1976 and that its registration was cancelled by the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies as it had become defunct. It has also come in evidence that this Society had more than 95 members. Defendant No. 2 D. S. Rajratnam had admitted the factum of cancellation, though he had termed it to be an unlawful cancellation. He claimed that the members/ share holders of the Society had appointed him as their authorised person and had also issued a General Power of Attorney in his favour. He, therefore, denied that he had no locus standi to deai with the property alleged to have been allotted to K. L. Bandawar or to any member of the Socieiy. He had, however, categorically admitted that there was a provisional allotment in favour of Shri K. L. Bandawar and he had made a payment of Rs. 2000/- vide Receipt No. 223. However, D. S. Rajratnam had also taken a position that Shri K. L. Bandawar was not put in possession and the possession remained with the Society and it was the Society which had erected a hut in that plot. Significantly enough, in his written statement, in para-3, there is only a mention to the hut on the suit plot but there is no mention to the barbed wire-fencing. The defendant No. 2, however, died during the pendency of the suit and had no opportunity of entering the witness-box. The defendants also did not examine anybody from the defunct Society. From the record, it appears that the plaintiff had tried to serve one B. V. Puranik, who was allegedly the Secretary of the Society, but it had come on the record that the said B. V. Puranik was not easily available as he had settled down somewhere in Uttar Pradesh.
25. The Courts below have held that since it was proved that K. L. Bandawar was never put in possession by the Society and since the plaintiff had failed to lead evidence to that effect, ihe possession was never transferred to K. L. Bandawar. On "this question, I am afraid, both the Courts below have faltered. There is enough evidence on record to show that K. L. Bandawar was in possession of the suit plot in pursuance of the letter (Exhibit 126). It is significant (to) note that, firstly, K. L. Bandawar had made (he payment of Rs.2000/-, out of which, Rs. 50/- were deducted as value of one share and Rs. 1,950/- were deducted as a cost of the plot. Exhibit 127 -- Receipt No. 223, bears testimony to this. Then, there is Exhibit 126 dated 25-12-1965 which describes Shri K. L. Bandawar as a member. It goes on to show that on 15th December, 1965 someexchange of the plots took place, and in addition to that, 37 plots were allotted on 8-11-1965, while 12 plots were allotted on 15-12-1965, wherein plot No. 18 is shown to have been allotted to Shri K. L. Bandawar. The said notice then goes on to say that the above plots were provisionally allotted and were subject to the Rules and Conditions framed in that behalf. Thereafter, there is an instruction that the first instalment should be made by 15-2-1966, which would be 50% of the balance of the cost; and the second instalment, by 15-4-1966, which would be for remaining balance of the cost of the plot, and that the failure to pay the above instalments would result in cancellation of the allotment. The said notice also shows that about four plots had remained to be allotted, for which the costs had also been fixed, and further notice is given that next allotment would be made to those who satisfied the above criteria on 10th February, 1966. It is further reiterated that this would be the last chance for the Income-tax (probably, employees) to become members and occupy the plots. The status of Shri K. L. Bandawar as a member of the Society was not seriously disputed, though it was reiterated that he had not become a member by paying Rs. 5/- of the entrance fee which was required for becoming a member. However, it is clear that Shri K. L. Bandawar was undoubtedly treated as a member of the Society. The question is not, whether Shri K. L. Bandawar, in fact, was a member of the Socieiy or not. The question is, in what manner he was treated. Exhibit 126 clearly goes to show that Shri K. L. Bandawar was treated as a member. This would be more or the less a settled position from the language used in Exhibit 126 where Shri K. L. Bandawar has been described as a member of the Society. It was, therefore, clear that Shri K. L. Bandawar was a provisional allottee of the suit plot.
26. The evidence of P.W.3-Nyanchandra Tiwari goes to show, that after allotment of the plot, K. L. Bandawar got possession of plot No. 18 and that he had constructed a tin-shed and had also fenced the said plot. He claims that the said fencing was prior to 1970, It was this witness who proved the receipt signed by B. V. Puranik in favour of Shri Bandawar and his evidence is not without significance because he is the owner of the plot No. 19 which plot is jusE abutting the suit plot. He has also specifically deposed that after 1976, after the Society became defunct, there has been not a singular meeting held by the members of that Society. He has also reiterated that there is no Association formed of the former shareholders, nor has he given any Power of Attorney in favour of Rajratnam. He has also reiterated that when in 1987, some persons had tried to remove the wire-fencing, he had telephoned Bandawars. His cross-examination is more or the less on the lines of the rules regarding the membership. However, there is absolutely no challenge to his version that Shri K. L. Bandawar was put in possession of the plot No. 18 for it was allotted to him. On the other hand, in his cross-examination, it has come that the Society used to give the possession at the time of allotment and that even he was given the possession at the time of allotment. This witness has further reiterated that the Society had 95 plots and all the plots were allotted to the members by 1965-67. Even this witness has stated that he has fenced his own plot. Now, therefore, it was clear that the version of this witness, that the possession was given to the members after the allotment, has remained unchallenged.
27. Insofar as P.W. 1-Ashok is concerned, he has reiterated in his examination-in-chief that his father was allotted plot No. 18 and the said plot was in possession of his father till his death and thereafter it remains in possession of his mother. He is a General Power of Attorney holder on behalf of Sarlabai, the plaintiff. He has stated that on this plot he had erected the barbed wire-fencing and tin shed. A contradiction was found by the trial Court and the lower appellate Court in between the pleadings and the version of this witness, to the effect that in the plaint it was merely stated that the suit property was fenced in the barbed wire-fencing and a metal plate was there exhibiting the ownership of the plaintiff and in the compound, which was fenced by barbed wire-fencing, a temporary shed was erected by the plaintiff for Chowkidar. It was, therfore, claimed by the defendants that in the plaint, it was claimed that it was the plaintiff who had fenced the plot, while it was claimed by P.W.1 Ashok in his deposition that he had fenced the plot. In fact, there is no specific pleading that it was Sarlabai, the plaintiff, who herself erected the fencing. In the pleading, if read properly, it only refers to the wire-fencing of the plot and a hut having been constructed on the plot. After all, it cannot be forgotten that the son was deposing on behalf of his mother. His assertion, therefore, that he had erected a fencing can, therefore, be easily interpreted as the assertion that the wire-fencing was erected on their behalf. The trial Court as well as the appellate Court have found non-existent contradiction in this aspect.
28. On the back-drop of this evidence on behalf of the plaintiff, it is necessary to see the evidence of the defendants as regards the possession. The defendants heavily relied on the evidence of D. W. 1-Gaurishankar who has deposed on behalf of the first purchaser Sailesh (defendant No. 1). Gaurishankar in his examination-in-chief has categorically admitted that there was a small tin-shed of 5-6 tins on the property which was covered by bamboo-matti. He has hastened to add that the structure was of the Society and that it was he who erected a barbed wire-fencing from the road-side. The hollowness of this claim of his having created the wire-fencing was completely exposed in his cross-examination where in para-8 he had to admit that the plot was already having a barbed wire-fencing and the said barbed wire-fencing was of the Society. In the wake of his claim in the
examination-in-chief that it was he who had erected the barbed wire-fencing, this admission goes long way to prove that the barbed wire-fencing was already there on the plot when he allegedly purchased the plot in the year 1987 and was allegedly put in possession thereof. The evidence of this witness, therefore, established that even before the plot was sold by defendant No. 2 to defendant No. 1, there was already a barbed wire-fencing in existence along with a hut. It has to be remembered here that it is a specific case of the plaintiff that the said barbed wire-fencing and hut were always there throughout right from 1965 onwards.
29. The evidence of D.W.2-Ramchandra suggests that he also had seen the said barbed wire-fencing when he purchased the plot from Sailesh (defendant No. 1). He also admits that there was already a hut. This he has reiterated even in his cross-examination in para-7. Ordinarily, it would be of no consequence whether the said barbed wire-fencing was there or not; but the pleading of defendants Nos. 3 and 4 is rather contradictory. Their pleading in para-8 is that after they were put in possession, they put their barbed wire compound. In para-9 also they pleaded that till 9-10-1987 there was no barbed wire compound and the plot was open with a kuccha Jhopdi where they permitted their Chowkidar to reside. If the case of defendants Nos. 3 and 4 that it was at their instance that the barbed wire-fencing is erected, is held to be true, the claim of Gaurishankar that it was he who had erected the barbed wire-fencing has to fall down. This becomes all the more prominent on the back-drop of an admission of Gaurishankar that the barbed wire-fencing was already there when he took possession. This admission is ioud and clear. So also, there is an admission by Ramchandra in his evidence, in complete contradiction to his pleading, that there was a barbed wire-fencing and there was bamboo-matting of the hut and the barbed wire-fencing was erected by him. All this goes to show that there was already a barbed wire-fencing even prior to the sale of the suit plot in favour of defendant No. 1.
30. In the written-statement of defendant No. 2-Rajratnam, there is a claim made that the plot was all the while in possession of the Society. However, there is nothing to suggest that it was the Society which erected a barbed wire-fencing around the suit plot. On the other hand, in para-17, Rajratnam has reiterated that it was on 1-10-1986 that the defendant No. 2 had put the defendant No. 1 in physical possession of the plot. The plot was duly measured by the defendant No. 1 who fixed his pegs and wooden poles on the boundary of the said plot. The defendant No. 2 has thus maintained a discrete silence on the question of barbed wire-fencing. It is because of these glaring contradictions on the part of the defendants in their pleadings and evidence that the question of barbed wire-fencing assumes importance.
If on this back-drop, we test the case of the plaintiff, it becomes clear that the barbed wire-fencing was erected much prior to these sale-deeds (Exhs. 103 and 104).
31. The existence of barbed wire-fencing on the suit plot cannot be denied at all as the photograph (Exh. 76) does show the said barbed wire-fencing which is being tried to be disturbed by some persons. There is no cross-examination of P.W.2-Dharmendra on this point, and his version, that the barbed wire-fencing was tried to be disturbed by the henchmen of defendants, goes unchallenged. Now, a barbed wire-fencing cannot emerge of its own and somebody had to put it. Considering the glaring admissions, it is clear that neither defendant No. 2-Rajratnam, nor defendant No. 1, nor defendants Nos. 3 and 4 had erected the barbed wire-fencing. By necessary logic then the plaintiff's case has to be accepted that the barbed wire-fencing was erected by or on behalf of the plaintiff. Both the Courts below have completely ignored these admissions and they have not even referred to the same. Though the lower appellate Court has made some stray reference to the barbed wire-fencing, nothing at all has been considered as regards the glaring admissions regarding the existence of the barbed wire-fencing. This amounts to a material non-consideration of the important piece of evidence like the admissions on record.
32. There are three police reports on record. Two of them are dated 5-4-1987 and 9-10-1987. In both these police reports, there is a specific assertion that the suit plot had all through been in possession of Shri K. L. Bandawar, and after his death, it remained in possession of Sarladevi, the plaintiff. There is another police report on 9-10-1987, when there was an attempt to remove the barbed wire-fencing. The said police reports have not even been referred to by the Courts below. If Article 'C' is seen, it clearly shows the photograph of barbed wire-fencing on which there is a metal plate bearing the name of Shri K. L. Bandawar. I have already referred to the other photographs (Exhibits 76, 77 and 78) which clearly show that not only there is a wire-fencing but the said wire-fencing was being dismantled by some persons. In photograph (Exhibit 77), there appears to be letters-- "Plot No. 18, owner-- Mr. K. Bandawar". In photograph (Exh. 78), a lady is seen trying to-remove these letters by some black paint. Thus, even an attempt to dispossess the plaintiff can be seen very clearly. The Courts below have completely ignored this aspect.
33. While considering the question of actual possession, both the Courts have not considered the important admissions, police reports as also the actual photographs. Once it is held that Shri K. L. Bandawar was treated as a member of the Society also, and the members who were allotted the plots were put in possession, it would be clear that not only that K. L. Bandawar was treated as a member but he was also put in possession of the plot and the plot continued in possession of K. L. Bandawar. It is clear from the existence of the barbed wire-fencing.
34. Shri Deopujari, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the defendants, in this behalf, asserted that it could be possible that though K. L. Bandawar was not put in possession at all, the sons of Shri K. L. Bandawar might have entered into the possession of the plot by illegally walking into the plot. That is neither the case pleaded by anybody nor is there any evidence to that effect. On the back-drop of the assertion that there was already a hut and barbed wire-fencing which was constructed by K. L. Bandawar on behalf of the plaintiff and such assertion going unchallenged and getting more assurance because of the contradictory pleadings and evidence on behalf of the defendants, it has to be held that K. L. Bandawar was in possession of the plot and there was a hut and barbed wire-fencing constructed by him. At any rate, however, it cannot be said, as has been held by the trial and the lower appellate Courts, that on the date of the filing of the suit also the plaintiff was not in possession of the suit plot. If there was settled possession of the suit plot before the plaintiff filed the suit, then she can always maintain a suit for injunction and claim an injunction that she should not be dispossessed illegally, and that precisely what her suit is. If prayer clause (i) of the plaint is seen, that is her precise claim.
35. The claim of possession was tried to be asserted by Shri Deopujari, the learned Counsel for the respondents/defendants, on the basis of some documents like Exhts. Nos. 92 and 93 which are the tax receipts showing the payments on behalf of Sailesh. They are of no consequence. The tax receipts do not show that Shailesh was in possession. Exhibit 94 is the assessment list. Exhibit 95 is the notice by City Survey Office dated 18-2-1987, while Exhibit 96 is a Sanad in favour of Shailesh. Exhibit 98 is memo by Nagpur Improvement Trust which is dated 21-1-1987. Shri Deopujari also relied on Exhibit 101, a receipt for payment of sanction of maps; Exhibit 106 which is sale-deed between Raj-ratnam and Shailesh making a mention of delivery of possession; Exhibit 129 suggesting No Objection by the Nagpur Improvement Trust for the sale as also Exhibit 105, a No Objection Certificate by the Nagpur Improvement Trust. All these documents are after the sale-deed between Rajratnam arid Shailesh. They cannot, therefore, be relied upon by the defendants. At any rate, none of these documents, shows clearly the possession of Shailesh on the date of sale-deed.
36. Shri Deopujari then relied upon the oral evidence of the witnesses who were the employees of the Nagpur Improvement Trust and the City Survey to suggest that they had, before issuing the documents mentioned above, enquired about the possession. The evidence of D.W.5 onwards does not show that it was defendant No. 1 or defendants Nos. 3 and 4 who were in possession of the suit plot. I have seen the evidence. It does not, in any manner, show that the purchaser of the suit plot was in possession. Shri Deopujari particularly relied upon the evidence of D.W.6-Bapurao. However, his cross-examination reveals that he does not know anything personally and he was merely speaking on the basis of the entries in the documents. Similar is the case as regards D.W. 7-Ashok who did not have any personal knowledge. The reliance on the evidence of the witnesses from the Nagpur Improvement Trust, City Survey and Nagpur Municipal Corporation is, therefore, completely uncalled for. Shri Deopujari also relied on the evidence of D.W. 4-Trimbak Moharir, another plot holder from the Society. He tried to point out that Shri Moharir had asserted that the possession was received only after the payment of full amount of the plot. The evidence of Shri Moharir (D.W. 4) is of extremely general nature. In his cross-examination, he had to admit that Shri Tiwari (P.W.3) was a member of the Society. Shri Deopujari relied on this witness also for the purposes of shewing the validity of the Power of Attorney and the authority letter by the members in favour of Rajratnam (defendant No. 2). However, such authority or the Power of Attorney given by a few share-holders might bind those who are the signatories to this document but not the whole Society and all the share-holders therein. On the question of possession, however, the evidence of this witness is of no consequence. In short, there is absolutely no evidence that the defendant No. 1 or defendants Nos. 3 and 4 ever were in possession and there is ample evidence on record to show that it was K. L. Bandawar and thereafter the plaintiff who were in actual possession of the plot.
37. Shri Deshpande also relies in support of his contention as regards the possession of the ruling , where the
word "allotment" has been explained. The following passage was relied upon by him in that judgment:
"We are of the opinion that in the context and circumstances, the word 'allotment' in the said order means making over of the flats. In other words, it means delivery of possession and registration of sale-deeds. An agreement of sale, that too. unregistered, has no con- sequence in the context, difficult as it is to verify its truth and correctness .....
It will not be necessary for me to delve upon this ruling particularly because it is found on the basis of the evidence on record itself that the possession was delivered to Shri K. L. Bandawar in pursuance of Exhibit 126, the allotment letter in his favour, and it was he who was in continuous possession of the plot in question, though undoubtedly the ruling helps the plaintiff. In that view of the fact, it will have to be held that both the Courts below have erred in returning the finding of possession against the plaintiff.
38. The time sequence in this case is also of extreme significance. It was in 1965 that there is allotment letter in favour of late Shri K. L. Bandawar. The Society had become defunct in the year 1976. It must be remembered here that defendant No. 2-Raj-ratnam was an erstwhile President of the Society which is clear from the oral evidence. Even till 1980 when K. L. Bandawar was alive, nothing happened and everything was in the cold storage. Right from 1965 till 1976, there is not a single notice served on K. L. Bandawar cancelling the provisional allotment in his favour. It is true that the plaintiff has not been able to show that the second and final payment was made by K. L. Bandawar towards the purchase price of the plot, but it is also to be remembered that there could be no automatic cancellation of the provisional allotment. There is no notice served by the Society cancelling the provisional allotment of K. L. Bandawar on account of the failure on his part to pay the rest of the consideration.
39. There is also no resolution cancelling the membership of K. L. Bandawar passed by the Society nor was there any move by the Society cancelling the share purchased by K. L. Bandawar for the purposes of getting a plot. There is no evidence on record to show that the Society has followed the mode prescribed in the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act for cancellation of the membership of K. L. Bandawar on account of his failure to pay the rest of the consideration. Till such steps are taken and the membership is cancelled, it could not be said that K. L. Bandawar's membership had been terminated and so also his connection with the Society. If the Society had to cancel the allotment in favour of K. L. Bandawar, it had to terminate his partnership. In support of this proposition, Shri Deshpande relied upon the law laid down by this Court in . That case is also in respect of the cancellation of the allotments of flats to the members. Relying on S. 25 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, the learned single Judge of this Court has held that in order to remove a person from membership, the prescribed procedure has to be followed, which also requires a notice to the member, and it is only then that the member could be expelled and the allotment in favour of the member could be cancelled. There is no evidence that any such tiling has been done in respect of Shri Bandawar, in the present case.
40. It is significant to note that in the year 1985 for the first time, the plaintiff obtained a no objection for the mutation in her favour from defendant No.2 Rajratnam who was posing himself to be holding for the Society. The said no objection was given in the year 1985 and thereafter there appears to be mutation entries in favour of K. L. Bandawar along with the Society in the year 1985 which is evident from Exhibits 54 and 55. Thus, there is a complete silence maintained by the Society right from 1965 even up to 1985 when in a mutation entry, name of K. L. Bandawar was added to the name of the Society. It is only thereafter, it seems, that defendant No. 2 Rajratnam sprang into action. There is a General Power of Attorney created by some 36 members in his favour and though the stamp paper appears to be dated 16-10-1985, there appears to be the last signature made thereon, on 9-4-1987. In this document at paragraph No. 5, there is a recital :--
"To acquire Plot No. 16 and/or 18 or any other plots of land from member/shareholders of the Society and to transfer the same by way of sale to any prospective buyer for such price as our Attorney may deem proper in his absolute discretion, and for this matter to start carry on and complete the necessary proceedings, legal or amicable against the member/shareholders of the Society."
This would entail at least one thing that till such time this document was brought into existence -- even assuming on 16-10-1985, the suit plot was not 'acquired' back by the Society from K. L. Bandawar and that defendant No. 2 in his discretion thought it fit to 'acquire' the said plot back from K. L. Bandawar. There are disputed claims as to when this document really came into existence. According to the plaintiff, this document was brought into existence in 1987, though the stamp paper appears to be dated 16-10-1985 which is apparent from the signature at serial No. 36 wherein a date appears to be written as 9-4-1987. Thus, there is a clinching proof in favour of the plaintiff that till 1985 or as the case may be till 1987, the plot was not acquired back. The significance of this document and the recital in para 5 therein is completely missed by both the Courts below who have not even made any reference to the same and have left this document completely out of consideration. This is a very strong circumstance that the plot was in possession of K. L. Bandawar. It is only thereafter that the sale deed has been created by defendant No. 2 Rajratnam on the basis of this Power of Attorney. It is not necessary in these proceedings to go into the legality or otherwise of those sale deeds. The plaintiff is not asking in the present suit for the cancellation of the sale deed nor any declaration to that effect is sought for in the present suit. As has already been pointed out that the suit is simply for the preservation of the possession. She simply asks the decree for declaration that her possession should not be disturbed, otherwise than by the due course of law. Both the Courts below have completely ignored this very important aspect of the nature of the suit and have proceeded to try all the issues including the issue under S. 53A of the Transfer of Property Act which was not, in fact, necessary. In their enthusiasm, both the Courts below have declared the nobility of the sale deeds in favour of the defendant No. 1 and defendants Nos. 3 and 4 and have also proceeded to confer a good title of the suit property on defendants Nos. 3 and 4. This was simply not the scope of the suit.
41. As has already been observed, once the finding of lawful possession goes in favour of the plaintiff, that should be the end of the matter, and, therefore, it is only to be seen as to whether the plaintiff would be entitled to an injunction as prayed by her, of restraining the defendants from dispossessing her otherwise than by due course of law. The suit, as has been filed, is perfectly legal. It has been held by the Division Bench of our own Court in Fakirabhai Bhagwandas v. Maganlal Haribhai that it is not necessary for a
person claiming injunction, to prove his title to the suit land. It is sufficient if he proves that he is in lawful possession of the land and his possession is invaded or threatened to be invaded by a person who has no title whatever. The legal position is settled by a view taken by the Apex Court in M. Kallappa Setty v. M. V. Lakshminara-yana Rao , wherein the Supreme Court held that the plaintiff, who is in possession of the suit property, can, on the strength of his possession, pesist interference from defendant who has no better title than himself and get injunction restraining the defendant from disturbing his possession. Of course, in both the two earlier mentioned cases, the question of the title of the defendant would undoubtedly be relevant. However, the Kerala High Court in Karthiyayani Amma v. Goyindan has thereafter gone ahead, relying on the
very Supreme Court decision in M. Kallapa Setty's case (supra) and has held that a person in possession can be evicted only in due process of law. Even the rightful owner cannot eject him with force. If he cannot be evicted with force, he continues to be in possession and he can resist invasion of his possession by every one including the rightful owner. If the rightful owner threatens his peaceful possession, he can approach Courts of law and pray the equitable relief of injunction to protect his possession. In coming to this conclusion, the learned single Judge of the Kerala High Court has relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in N.S.S. Ltd. v. Rev. Fr. Alexander as also the earlier Kerala High Court Full Bench
decision in . The learned single Judge has also quoted in the decision the observations by the Supreme Court in M. Kallappa Setty's case (cited supra). The observations are to the following effect:--
"Basing on this observation, it was contended that the Supreme Court should be deemed to have decided that a person in possession without title could successfully resist interference of his possession only from persons who had no better title, suggesting thereby that a person with better title could interfere with the possession of such a person. With great respect, the above sentences cannot be read to formulate such a position of law. There, the Supreme Court was considering the dispute between two persons who put forward rival titles, but one of them alone proved possessory title. There the defendant's title was not considered by the trial Court, the appellate Court or the High Court. The High Court dismissed the suit holding that the plaintiff did not satisfactorily prove his title, disregarding the concurrent findings of possession by the Courts of fact. It was in this context that the above observations were made by the High Court. It is not permissible nor is it proper to read a judgment as a statute. Sentences occurring in a judgment have to be read in the proper context. It may not be correct to say that casual observation in a Supreme Court judgment or even obiter dicta unconnected with the facts of the case under discussion and not laying down any proposition of law have binding force as law declared by the Supreme Court under Art. 141 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court itself has laid down the guideline how to understand its judgments and not to tear sentences out of context in Municipal Committee v. Hazara Singh . In my view,
with utmost respect, the sentences extracted above do not lay down anything different from what has been laid down by this Court in the decisions cited above."
Ultimately, the learned single Judge relying upon the Full Bench decision of the Kerala High Court reported in Lissy v. Kuttan (1976 Ker LT 571), heid as follows :--
"The ultimate position, therefore, reduces itself to this: Can a person in possession without title sustain a suit for injunction against the rightful owner if he proves possession? Yes. In this case, plaintiff is found to be in possession. On the finding, he should be granted the injunction prayed for. A person in possession can be evicted only in due process of law. Even the rightful owner cannot eject him with force, he continues to be in possession and he can resist invasion of his possession by everyone including the rightful owner. If the rightful owner threatens his peaceful possession, he can approach Courts of Law and pray for the equif able relief of injunction to protect his possession."
42. Considering the law laid down by the Supreme Court in N.S.S. Ltd.'s case ; M. KalappaSetty's case ; the
Full Bench decision of Kerala High Court in Lissy's case (1976 Ker LT 571); and the decision in Karthiyayani Amma's case
all cited supra, I concur with the view expressed by the learned single Judge of the Kerala High Court. In the case in hands also the situation is not different. It is amply proved that the plaintiff has been in peaceful possession of the property in question; that the initial entry of her husband K. L. Bandawar itself has been lawful as he was put in possession by the Society and after him, the plaintiff has continued to be in possession. It is now amply proved that the plaintiff's possession is uninterrupted right from 1965, or at least after the death of her husband in 1980, till the date of filing of the suit. In that view of the matter, the plaintiff would certainly be entitled to an injunction as prayed for by her, and both the Courts below, having failed to correctly appreciate the factum of possession of the plaintiff over the suit land, have erred in law in refusing her the injunction.
43. Shri Dcopujari, learned counsel for the respondents, however, urged that this could not be true that the plaintiff cannot claim an injunction against the defendants Nos. 3 and 4 as they had the sale deed in their favour. It has already been held that this is not a suit for declaration regarding the sale deed in favour of defendants Nos. 3 and 4, nor has the plaintiff asked for setting aside of those sale deeds. This question could be gone into where the defendants Nos. 3 and 4 would ask for the possession of the suit plot on the basis of their title against the present plaintiff. However, in the present suit, that is not possible. For the similar reasons, the further contention of Shri Deopujari is not necessary to be considered. His contention was that in the present suit, the plaintiff has asked for the preservation of her possession only on the basis of S. 53A of the Transfer of Property Act contending that her possession has to be saved as it was in part performance of the contract. In reality, the decision is not necessary on the question of S. 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, even if there is undoubtedly a reference to S. 53A of the Transfer of Property Act in the pleadings. However, the whole tenor of the pleadings is to the effect that the plaintiff has been in possession, as her husband was put in possession in pursuance of an allotment letter. The pleadings have been reproduced in this judgment with sufficient elaboration only for showing that all that the plaintiff was asking was that she was in lawful possession of the suit plot and the said possession needed to be preserved against the on-slaught by the defendants.
44. Indeed, in the present proceedings, the plaintiff could not have asked anything better than this. She could not have come forth in the Court for specific performance of the contract against the Society, as such a suit would not have been possible under S. 53A of the Transfer of Property Act and she could not have assumed the posit ion of a plaintiff in a suit which was based on S. 53A of the Transfer of Property Act. Again, the Society itself had become defunct and there was no Society in existence because of its deregistration to ask any relief against the same. All that the plaintiff could and has lightly claimed was the preservation of her possession. The said preservation of her possession could be possible only if it was proved that she was in possession and, in my opinion, she has proved her possession to the hilt. It will, therefore, not be necessary for me to consider the further questions raised by Shri Deopujari as to whether the plaintiff's possession under S. 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, or whether her title was inferior to that of defendants Nos. 3 and 4. As has already been pointed out, that was never the scope of the suit. In fact, both the Courts below have faultered in correctly appreciating even the scope of the suit. Such question could be tried only if it arose between the defendants Nos. 3 and 4 on one hand, and the plaintiff on the other; and indeed, present suit is not such a suit. This position is more particularly obtained because if the plaintiff fails to establish her possession, then her suit must fail completely; if she establishes her possession then the decree as claimed by her has to follow. In that view of the matter, it is not necessary for me to consider the case law as relied upon by Shri Deopujari for showing that the possession was not handed over to Shri K. L. Bandawar by the Society in pursuance of the part performance of the contract.
45. Shri Deopujari then strenuously contended that this Court was going into the dangerous arena of appreciation of evidence, and it could not set aside the pure findings of fact under S. 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. I have already pointed out that the Courts below have completely ignored material evidence on record. They have also completely misapprehended the scope of the suit and their refusal to appreciate the evidence on record has resulted in grave injustice raising a substantial question of taw in between the parties.
46. In view of the above discussions, it must be held that the judgments passed by the trial and the appellate Courts are incorrect judgments and deserve to be set aside. I proceed to pass the following order:
ORDER
The judgments of the trial and the lower appellate courts are set aside. The present second appeal is allowed. The decree prayed for by the plaintiff in prayer Cls. (i) and (ii) of the plaint is granted.
It is declared that the plaintiff cannot be evicted without following the due process of law from Plot No. 18 described in the Schedule appended to the plaint and the further injunction is granted against the defendants, their workers, assigns, agents and representatives, or any person or persons claiming through them, restraining them permanently from dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit property shown in the plaint Schedule, without following the due process of law.
In the circumstances, however, there shall be no order as to the costs throughout.
47. Appeal allowed.

Print Page