Research › Browse › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

1956 DIGILAW 4 (GAU)

Arambam Ongbi Jamini Devi v. Soram Chaoba Singh

1956-01-24

BRIJ NARAIN

body1956
JUDGMENT The suit which has given rise to this appeal was brought by the plaintiffs-respondents claiming 195 1/2 pots of paddy valued at Rs. 1,173/- out of 322 1/2 pots of paddy harvested and kept in the custody of the O.C. Thoubal on the allegation that the paddy crop had been raised by them in the land under patta No. 105/19-Khabam Pana. The land under patta No. 105/19 Khabam Pana originally belonged to late Dorendra Singh, husband of the appellant 1 and the plaintiffs claimed to be the tenants of the entire 10 paris and 3 sangams of land on behalf of Arambam Dorendra Singh and after his death on behalf of Srimati Jamini Devi, the appellant 1, who is the widow of Arambam Dorendra Singh. The plaintiffs claimed to have remained in possession as tenants from the time of Arambam Dorendra Singh deceased and they alleged that they had paid loushal (rent) regularly at the rate of 12 pots of paddy per year, upto 1953. In the year, 1954, the plaintiffs claimed to have performed Loutaba ceremony for starting cultivation in the land in question on the Sripanchami day and they actually started cultivation, but the defendants 2 to 5 (the appellants 2 to 5) at the instigation of the appellant 1 began to interfere with their cultivation work even though no Louhaidokpa (oral notice to the cultivators before Sripanchami to quit the land) had been performed. The plaintiffs were thus obliged to start proceeding under S. 145, Cr. P.C. (Criminal Case No. 58 of 1954) in the court of the E.A.C. No. 1 and a preliminary order was passed in this case and later on the land was attached on 3-6-1954. The final order was passed on 12-7-1954 in favour of the defendants-appellants. The plaintiffs filed criminal revision application No. 7 of 1954 in this court, but it was rejected on 25-1-1955 on the ground that the finding of the learned Magistrate was not perverse. It was further ordered by this court on 24-2-1955 in Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 4 of 1955 that the paddy crop in question should be handed over to the second party (present appellants) in proceeding under S. 145, Cr. It was further ordered by this court on 24-2-1955 in Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 4 of 1955 that the paddy crop in question should be handed over to the second party (present appellants) in proceeding under S. 145, Cr. P.C. Before the paddy crop could be delivered to the appellants, the plaintiffs filed the suit No. 3 of 1955 which has given rise to this appeal in the court of the District Judge, Manipur on 1-3-1955. 2. The defendants-appellants contended that the tenancy of the plaintiffs had already been terminated by communicating Louhaidokpa one month before Sripanchami of 1954 and the defendants 2 to 5 cultivated the land after performing Loutaba ceremony in the month of Sripanchami. Thus according to the" defendants, the disputed paddy crops belonged to the defendants 2 to 5 and not to the plaintiffs. It was further contended that the suit was barred by estoppel, waiver and acquiescence and it was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. 3. The learned District Judge, who tried the suit decreed it on 29-7-1955 and so the defendants have come to this court in appeal. 4. The main points which arise for determination in this appeal are : (1) Was the plaintiffs suit barred by S. 42, Specific Relief Act ? (2) Had the plaintiffs been ejected from the land in question after due observance of the custom of Louhaidokpa by the defendant-appellant 1 ? (3) Was the paddy crop in question raised by the plaintiffs or was it raised by the defendants-appellants 2 to 5 ? (4) Could the plaintiffs tenancy be legally determined even though no Louhaidokpa was performed, after the passing of the final order in proceeding under S. 145, Cr. P.C. (5) Were the plaintiffs-respondents merely tenant-at-will and could defendant 1 legally enter into possession over the land in question through her new tenants in the year, 1954 and was the present suit not maintainable on this account ? FINDINGS: Point No. 1 : 5. The plaintiffs prayed for declaration that they were entitled to get 195 1/2 pots of paddy which were in the custody of Chinganbam Mani Singh, O.C. of Thoubal Police Station on the ground that the crop in question had been raised by them in the lou (fields) in dispute. FINDINGS: Point No. 1 : 5. The plaintiffs prayed for declaration that they were entitled to get 195 1/2 pots of paddy which were in the custody of Chinganbam Mani Singh, O.C. of Thoubal Police Station on the ground that the crop in question had been raised by them in the lou (fields) in dispute. It has been contended by the learned Advocate for the appellants that as the plaintiffs did not pray for recovery of possession over the property in question the suit was barred by S. 42, Specific Relief Act. 6. To maintain a suit under S. 42, Specific Relief Act, the following essentials must be established : (1) that the plaintiff is a person entitled to any legal character or to any right as to property; (2) that the defendant is a person denying or interested to deny the plaintiffs title to such character or right; (3) the declaration sued for is a declaration that the plaintiff is entitled to a legal character or to a right to property; and (4) where the plaintiff is able to seek further relief than a mere declaration of title, he must seek such relief, vide Man Kuar v. Tara Singh, 7 All 583 (A) ; Jeka Dula v. Bai Jivi, 1938 Bom 37 (AIR V 25) (B). The plaintiffs, in the present case did not pray for possession and so the question is whether they were legally bound to seek further relief regarding possession in this suit on not. Para 3 of the memorandum of appeal shows that the appellants in this Court alleged that : "the respondents thereafter brought a suit claiming 195 1/2 pots of paddy valued at Rs. 1,173/- out of 322 1/2 pots of paddy harvested and kept in Jima (custody) of the police, in the court of the District Judge, Manipur, being civil suit No. 3 of 1955...... ...." and so there remains, no doubt on the question that at the time when the suit No. 3 of 1955 was instituted in court, the disputed paddy was in the custody of the court to be given to the person, who might be declared to be the owner thereof by the competent court. If this paddy had been given to the defendants and then the plaintiffs were to bring their suit, the position would have been different. If this paddy had been given to the defendants and then the plaintiffs were to bring their suit, the position would have been different. It has been laid down in Aisa Siddika v. Bidhu Sekhsr Banerjee, reported in 18 Ind. Cas. 633 (Cal) (C) that a court will not throw out a suit on the ground that it is barred by the proviso to S. 42, Specific Relief Act, unless it is satisfied beyond all doubt that the plaintiff ought to seek further relief and yet has claimed nothing beyond a declaration of title. It has further been stated there that the question whether the plaintiff is able to seek further relief than a mere declaration of title, must depend upon the circumstances of the particular case. As the O.C., Thoubal Police Station, was in the custody of the paddy in question on behalf of the rightful owner and when the plaintiffs were declared to be the rightful owner thereof by the competent court, they would be deemed to be in possession over the crop in question through O.C., Thoubal Police Station and as such the plaintiffs were not bound to pray for possession in this suit and the suit could not be deemed to be barred by the proviso to S. 42, Specific Relief Act, and the rulings reported in - Manindra Chandra Nandi v. Sarabindu, 1919 Cal 672 (AIR V 6) (D), and - Jogendranath Sen v. Behari Lal, 1930 Cal 450 (AIR V 17) (E), have no application to this case. The point is, therefore, decided against the appellants. Point No. 2 : 7. Shrimati Jamini Devi (defendant 1) tried to state that the Louhaidokpa was performed and Bare Singh was enjoined not to cultivate the land the latter communicated the information about this notice to quit, to the plaintiffs, but Bare Singh, the former Loupanaba (Manager) has not been examined in this case and there is no reliable evidence on this record to show that the plaintiffs-. respondents were ever given notice to quit regarding the land in question situated at Yairipok Bamon Leikai Salou Loukon. respondents were ever given notice to quit regarding the land in question situated at Yairipok Bamon Leikai Salou Loukon. Khoirom Tamphajao Singh (D.W. 2), Khoirom Yaima Singh (D.W. 3), Ningthoujam Madhu-mangol Singh (D.W. 4), Maibam Yaimamacha Singh (D.W. 5) and Soraisam Babudhon Singh (D.W. 6) have deposed that no Louhaidokpa was performed in the presence of the plaintiffs and as the plaintiffs were admittedly cultivating this land from the time of the husband of defendant 1, the learned District Judge was, I think, right in holding that no Louhaidokpa was performed regarding this land by defendant I so far as the present plaintiffs-respondents were concerned. Soram Chaoba Singh alias Chaoyaima Singh (plaintiff 1) has deposed that the plaintiffs cultivated paddy in the land in question from Sripanchami of 1954, corresponding to 8-2-1954 and as his statement on this point is supported by Takhellambam Amuba Singh, Adhikarimayum Brajalala Sarma and Tomba Mia, plaintiffs witnesses, I think, the plaintiffs evidence on this point is reliable and so I hold that the plaintiffs were not ejected from the land in question by defendant 1 in accordance with the custom of Louhaidokpa and I decide this point also against the appellants. Point No. 3 : 8. The learned District Judge, after going through the evidence of the parties has come to the conclusion that the crop in question was raised by the plaintiffs and not by the defendants 2 to 5. Khoirom Tamphajao Singh (D.W. 2) does not know who was cultivating the land in question at the time of this controversy and as the plaintiffs evidence is quite clear and as the plaintiffs had no reason to leave the land as no Louhaidokpa had been performed, it is probable that the crop in question was raised by the plaintiffs. The mere fact that this court did not interfere in revision in criminal revision application No. 4 of 1955, vide Ext. A/1 with the findings of the learned Magistrate in Ext. A/2 on the ground that the findings were not preverse and in the order dated 24-2-1955, direction was given that the defendants be given the crop cannot be of any help to the present appellants when they have failed to prove that the plaintiffs-respondents were ever duly ejected in accordance with the Manipuri custom. A/2 on the ground that the findings were not preverse and in the order dated 24-2-1955, direction was given that the defendants be given the crop cannot be of any help to the present appellants when they have failed to prove that the plaintiffs-respondents were ever duly ejected in accordance with the Manipuri custom. After going through the evidence, I agree with the learned District Judge in holding that the plaintiffs have established by their evidence that the crop in question was raised by them and so I decide this point also against the appellants. Points Nos. 4 and 5 : 9. I shall take up both these points together. It has been contended by the learned Advocate for the appellants that the plaintiffs were merely tenants-at-will and so their tenancy was determinable by defendant 1 on her expressly or impliedly intimating to them her wish that the tenancy should be at an end, vide Hill and Redmans Law of Landlord and Tenant, 11th Edn., p. 24, and so the plaintiffs tenancy should be deemed to have come to an end on the Sripanchami of 1954-A. D. when defendant 1 allowed defendants 2 to 5 to occupy this land as her tenants. There is no doubt that after the determination of the tenancy, any act of the landlord showing an intention to take possession is sufficient to revest the possession to him, vide Art. 389 of Law of Landlord and Tenant referred to above, but as in this case it has not been proved that the defendant 1 (landlord) ever determined the plaintiffs tenancy in accordance with the custom of Manipur (Louhaidokpa) and so the fact that the defendant 1 claimed to have let out this land to defendants 2 to 5, will not be of any material consequence and. it will not materially effect the plaintiffs rights. The plaintiffs could not be deemed to be a mere tenants-at-will as they have been in possession over the land in question for a considerably long time and they could not be ejected except in accordance with the Manipuri custom of Louhaidokpa. The order under S. 145, Cr. it will not materially effect the plaintiffs rights. The plaintiffs could not be deemed to be a mere tenants-at-will as they have been in possession over the land in question for a considerably long time and they could not be ejected except in accordance with the Manipuri custom of Louhaidokpa. The order under S. 145, Cr. P.C., was subject to the decision of a regular civil suit and in the regular civil suit, the plaintiffs have been held to have occupied the land in question as the tenants during the year 1954, and the crop in question were also held to have been raised, by them. As such it becomes clear that both these two points must be decided against the appellants and they are decided accordingly. 10. The result is that this appeal has no force and it is hereby dismissed with costs to the respondents. Appeal dismissed.