HARNAM SINGH Vs. AMAR NATH AHUJA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two second appeals can be disposed off by a common judgment as they involved an identical question. The courts below have also disposed off the suits giving rise to the aforesaid appeals by a common judgment. These appeals are by one Harnam Singh, who was defendant in Original Suit no. 196 of 1969 filed by the respondent Amamath Ahuja against him for ejectment from a plot no. B-15 situate in the Town Area of Rudrapur and plaintiff in a suit being Suit no. 317 of 1968 which he had filed against the respondent Amarnath Ahuja for permanent injunction restraining the latter from interfering with the possession of Harnam Singh over the same plot. The trial court decreed the suit no. 317 of 1968 and dismissed suit no. 196 of 1969. Aggrieved by the decision of the trial court in the two suits, the respondent Amarnath Ahuja filed two appeals. Both these appeals have been allowed. The suit of Harnam Singh has been dismissed and that of Amarnath Ahuja decreed. Hence these two second appeals by Harnam Singh.

(2.) Suit no. 317 of 1968 was filed with the assertion that Harnam Singh was in possession over the plot in dispute having purchased it from one To-pan Ram. in the alternative, it was asserted that Harnam Singh had prescribed title by adverse possession. The defence of Amarnath Ahuja in the suit was that the plot in question had been leased out by the State Government to one Sri Sheo Narain Garg who had sold the same to defendant Amarnath Ahuja and that Amarnath Ahuja had been coming down in possession over the land in dispute. In suit no. 196 of 1969 filed by Amarnath Ahuja against Harnam Singh for possession over the land in dispute, it was asserted that the land in dispute had been acquired by Amarnath Ahuja from Sheo Narain Garg aforesaid, who was a lessee of the land in dispute from the Government. This suit was contested by Harnam Singh on the ground on which his own suit was founded.

(3.) The two suits were consolidated and tried together. They have also been disposed off by common judgments by both the courts below. The learned Munsif came to the conclusion that Harnam Singh had not proved his title over the land in dispute. He had perfected his rights by adverse possession. In view of these findings, the suit of Harnam Singh was decreed and that of Amarnath Ahuja dismissed. In the two appeals filed by Amarnath Ahuja, the lower appellate court has held that Harnam Singh has failed to establish that he had acquired right by adverse possession. It has further held that there is valid transfer by sale in favour of Amarnath Ahuja from Sheo Narain, who was a lessee of the land in dispute from the government. On these findings, the lower appellate court reversed the decree of the trial court, decreed the suit of Amarnath Ahuja and dismissed that of Harnam Singh. Learned counsel appearing for Harnam Singh in the two appeals has contended that the lower appellate court has erred in law in taking the view that the transfer in favour of Amarnath Ahuja was not void. He urged that, inasmuch as, under clause 8 of the lease deed executed in favour of Sheo Narain, there was a prohibition against the transfer of the lease property without the permission of the Deputy Administrator, the transfer of the land in favour of Amarnath Ahuja was void ab initio, there being admittedly no permission from the Deputy Administrator. Learned counsel further submitted that under the Government Grants (U.P. Amendment) Act, 1960, the terms of a lease executed on behalf of the Government have the force of a statute and any breach of the terms must be construed as breach of a statutory provision. That being so, learned counsel contended the transfer in favour of Amarnath Ahuja must be treated as void and not merely voidable at the instance of the government.