BHUBANESHWAR PRASAD NARAIN SINGH & ORS. versus SIDHESWAR MUKHERJEE & ORS.

BHUBANESHWAR PRASAD NARAIN SINGH & ORS. versus SIDHESWAR MUKHERJEE & ORS.

Even if the appellants were in actual khas possession within Section 2(k) of the Act, the plaintiff-respondent, as a co-sharer, retained constructive possession through the appellants. Under the law, possession of one co-sharer is the possession of all co-sharers unless there is evidence of ouster or adverse possession. The deeming provision of Section 6 benefits all those regarded in law as being in possession. Hence, the respondent did not forfeit his share in the bakasht lands and retained the right thereto, now as a raiyat under the statute rather than as a proprietor.

Parties
Appellant: Bhubaneshwar Prasad Narain Singh & Ors.; Respondent: Sidheshwar Mukherjee & Ors.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
02 February 1971
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Decision on Appeal From Patna High Court Judgment Dated January 14, 1964 in First Appeal No. 572 of 1958
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Partition, Land Tenure, Constructive Possession, Vesting of Land, Tenancy Rights Under Statute, Co Sharers' Rights
Property Law Partition Land Tenure Constructive Possession Vesting of Land Tenancy Rights Under Statute Co Sharers' Rights

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bhubaneshwar Prasad Narain Singh & Ors.

Appellant

Sidheshwar Mukherjee & Ors.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Decision on Appeal From Patna High Court Judgment Dated January 14, 1964 in First Appeal No. 572 of 1958

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Section 6 of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950, caused the plaintiff-respondent to lose his share in bakasht lands following vesting in the State when the appellants were in actual possession.
  2. 2 Whether constructive possession of a co-sharer persists after the Act when another co-sharer has actual possession.

Ratio Decidendi

Even if the appellants were in actual khas possession within Section 2(k) of the Act, the plaintiff-respondent, as a co-sharer, retained constructive possession through the appellants. Under the law, possession of one co-sharer is the possession of all co-sharers unless there is evidence of ouster or adverse possession. The deeming provision of Section 6 benefits all those regarded in law as being in possession. Hence, the respondent did not forfeit his share in the bakasht lands and retained the right thereto, now as a raiyat under the statute rather than as a proprietor.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The partition suit is allowed to proceed; the plaintiff-respondent's right to his share in bakasht lands is affirmed as a raiyat under the Act, not as a proprietor or tenure-holder.