DADGULAL RAMDAS NAGORI Vs. MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE, BURHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by the Defendant No. 1 against the decision of Bhutt J. (as he then was) in Second Appeal No. 112 of 1950 decided on the 22nd November 1956 reversing the decrees of both the lower Courts dismissing the Plaintiff -Committee's suit for possession.

(2.) THE Plaintiff Municipal Committee filed a suit challenging the validity of the sale of its property to the Defendant No. 1 by Defendant. No. 2 in his capacity as its Officer -in -Charge during its supersession. Defendant No. 2 died during the pendency of the second appeal. Briefly stated the relevant facts are these. The Plaintiff -Committee was superseded in 1943 and the Defendant No. 2 was appointed by the Provincial Government as its Officer -in -Charge. The Plaintiff -Committee owned plots Nos. 166 and 169 within the Burhanpur municipal area. These plots were acquired by the Provincial Government under the Land Acquisition Act for the Plaintiff -Committee with a view to keep them open and remove congestion in that area. The Defendant No. 1 was the owner of the neighbouring house. He was in need of some area from these plots for better enjoyment of his own house property. He thereupon persuaded the Defendant No. 2 and prevailed upon him to transfer to him site 'A' from plot No. 166, and site 'B' from plot No. 169 under the sale deed dated the 21st December 1944, site 'C' from plot No. 166 on the 26th November 1945, and site 'D' from plot No. 169 on the 26th February 1946. These sites have been delineated on the plaint map. The Plaintiff -Committee contended that the Defendant No. 2 had no power to transfer this municipal property under the provisions of the C. P. and Berar Municipalities Act, 1922, and the transfers were also fraudulent effected by the Defendant No. 2 acting in collusion with the Defendant No. 1, and were, therefore, not binding on the Committee. The Plaintiff -Committee therefore, claimed possession of those sites. In the alternative, the Committee claimed damages from the Defendant No. 2. Both the Defendants contested the claim of the Plaintiff -Committee. The original Court as also the first lower appellate Court found against the Plaintiff -Committee in all respects and dismissed the suit mainly on the ground that the Defendant No. 2 as Officer -in -Charge had power to transfer the property. In second appeal, it was held by the learned single Judge that the Defendant No. 2 had no power under the Act to transfer the property which had vested in His Majesty during the period of the Committee's supersession. Accordingly he allowed the appeal and directed the Defendant No. 1 to place the Plaintiff -Committee in vacant possession of all the four sites in suit after removal by him of the materials of the structures erected thereon within a period of three months failing which the Plaintiff -Committee was allowed to obtain possession through Court. As against the Defendant No. 2 the appeal was dismissed as he had died during the pendency and no legal representatives had been brought in his place.

(3.) IF a committee is so dissolved or superseded the following consequences shall ensue: