Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Murphy, J.

60. The parties to this dispute are two Mill Companies at Ahmedabad. Their premises adjoin each other, and the matter of difference between them is as to the title to. and possession of a piece of land measuring 8,361, square yards out of Survery No. 210 of Shahr Kotda in Ahmedabad.

61. The history of this survey number is that it was originally owned by a Mahomedan, who, on March 24, 1893, executed a permanent lease in favour of the plaintiff Company. The heirs of the original owner have also since mortgaged the annual rent payable to them to the same Company for Rs. 5,000. Originally the plaintiff Company does not seem to have, made any great use of the land in suit except for stacking coal, timber and other similar articles. Ultimately, about 1,580 square yards were used by the defendant Company, whose premises adjoin this strip, for constructing a large tank and godowns at what must have been considerable expense. They also appear to have stored miscellaneous articles on the remainder of the 8,361 square yards in suit, and after the suit had been filed, they erected a steam chest and a shed on another 10 square yards. The plaintiff firm claimed possession of the land with the tank and buildings on it, and also asked for an injunction to restrain the defendant firm from obstructing them in the use of the remainder of the land and the removal of the steam chest and shed over it, and possession of that portion of the survey number also. The defendant firm pleaded that they held under an oral assignment, or, in the alternative, that their possession had become adverse to the plaintiff Mill. A third suggestion, made at the trial, as appears from the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge was that they were licensees of the plaintiff firm,

62. It was on these allegations that the parties went to trial. The learned Subordinate Judge found in favour of the plaintiff Company as regards the open land and that used for the steam chest. I think there can be no dispute about the land used for the purpose of the steam chest, for it was only taken possession of very recently, and no question of the license, or of adverse possession can arise, while it is admittedly within Survey No. 210, which belongs to the plaintiff-firm. As to the rest of the open land, there is no evidence of any oral assignment of a portion of the permanent lease to the defendant firm. At the best, all that the defendants can prove is that they used to deposit certain unused pieces of machinery, coal, etc., on it. I think it has been correctly found that the plaintiff Company also made similar use of the portion of the same plot of land, and, on the evidence, I agree with the learned Subordinate Judge that no adverse possession has been made out by the defendant firm against the plaintiffs. The defendant Company's acts on this land could only have been done on sufferance, or by license, and this being so, and the defendants having no title, they cannot, I think, resist the plaintiffs' claim to the open land, for their acts being based on a license, such a license would not fall under Clause (a) or (b) of Section 60 of the Indian Easements Act, and so may be revoked, either expressly or by implication. I think that the plaintiff Company is clearly entitled to the relief granted them as to this land. The remaining dispute is as to the 1,580 square yards on which the defendants' buildings stand. The defence here is similar to that in the case of the open land, that is to say, that it has either been held on an assignment of a portion of the permanent lease, or by adverse possession. The plea of adverse possession depends on when the buildings in question were put up, and this plain fact obviously could have easily been proved by the defendant Company from their books, for the costs must necessarily have been debited in the accounts. But these accounts have never been produced, and the permission to build on the land granted by the Municipality was given in April, 1909, though the defendants' evidence is to the effect that the building was put up two years earlier. I think that, in the circumstances, an adverse inference can safely be drawn against the defendant firm to the effect that the evidence they have failed to produce would have been against their interest, and that the buildings were put up inside the period of limitation.