Allahabad High Court
Ganpat Rai And Ors. vs Multan And Ors. on 1 February, 1916
Equivalent citations: 33IND. CAS.97
JUDGMENT
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for possession of a house. Both the Courts below have decided against the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs allege that the relation of landlord and tenant existed between the plaintiffs and their predecessors-in-title and the defendants and their predecessors-in-title, that the defendants denied the title of the plaintiffs and that consequently they were entitled to possession, The point we have to decide is a question of law. If we decide it in favour of the appellants it is admitted that the case must go back for trial on the merits. If, on the other hand, we decide it in favour of the respondents it is admitted that the appeal should be dismissed. The learned district Judge held that the defendants were not estopped from denying the title of the plaintiffs because they or their predecessors-in-title were not originally put into possession by the plaintiffs or their predecessors-in-title, and that consequently it lay on the plaintiffs to prove their title which they had failed to do: The learned Judge quotes the Calcutta ruling in the case of Lal Mahomad v. Kallanus 11 C. 519. Section 116 of the Evidence Act is as follows:
No tenant of immoveable property, or person claiming through such tenant, shall, during the continuance of such tenancy, be permitted to deny that the landlord of such tenant had, at the beginning of the tenancy, a title to such immoveable property.
2. It seems to us quite clear that once a person is the tenant of another person he cannot be allowed to deny that the person whose tenant he was the owner when the tenancy was created. He can no doubt admit that his landlord was the owner at the commencement of the tenancy and allege and prove by evidence that the landlord's estate has subsequently come to an end: but he cannot deny that at the commencement of the tenancy the person with whom he entered into the contract was the owner of the property. The words "at the beginning of the tenancy" are expressly inserted in the section to show that the tenant is not prevented from showing that after the tenancy commenced the estate of the landlord devolved on some other person. It is urged that the moment a person ceases to be a tenant the section no longer applies. This is not the view of the law taken by their Lordships of the Privy Council in the recant case of Belas Kumar v. Desraj Ranjit Singh 30 Ind. Cas. 290 : 13 A.L.J. 991 : 19 C.W.N. 1207 : 29 M.L.J. 333 : 2 L.W. 830 : 18 M.L.T. 248 : 17 Bom. L.R. 1006 : 37 A. 557 : 22 C.L.J. 516 : (1915) M.M.W.N. 757 : 42 I.A. 202. In that case the defendant was put into possession by the plaintiff as tenant. He never gave up possession but was served with a notice to quit. He subsequently sought to show that the plaintiff had no title to the property. He claimed that although he could not deny the plaintiff's title so long as the relation of landlord and tenant subsisted, the bar was removed when the tenancy came to an end on the expiration of the notice to quit. Their Lordships of the Privy Council say: Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act is perfectly clear on the point, and rests on the principle well established by many English cases, that a tenant who has been let into possession cannot deny his landlord's title, however defective it may be, so long as he has not openly restored possession by surrender to his landlord."
3. In our opinion the view taken by the learned District Judge was not correct. If the plaintiffs can prove that the relation of landlord and tenant existed between them or the persons through whom they claim and the defendants or persons through whom the defendants claim, then the defendants are not entitled to deny that the plaintiffs or the persons through whom they claim were the owners of the property during all the time the relation of landlord and tenant subsisted and right up to the time that that relationship ceased to exist. We allow the appeal, set aside the decree of the learned District Judge, remand the case to him under Order XLI, Rule 23, with directions to re-admit the appeal under its original number on 'the file and proceed to hear and determine the same on the merits. Costs here and heretofore will be costs in the cause. Costs in this Court will include fees on the higher scale.