GURUCHARAN SINGH versus KAMLA SINGH & ORS.

GURUCHARAN SINGH versus KAMLA SINGH & ORS.

The plaintiff was not in 'khas possession' of the suit lands within the meaning of section 6, as actual possession (not mere right or constructive possession) is required; hence, his title vested in the State under sections 3 and 4 of the Act. Without title, he could not maintain possession claim except over certain items admitted to be outside the contesting defendants' possession.

Parties
Appellant: GURCHARAN SINGH; Respondent: KAMLA SINGH; Appellant: U. P. Singh; Respondent: A. K. Srivastava; Respondent: M. S. Narasimhan; Respondent: B. P. Singh
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
09 September 1975
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal by Special Leave
Outcome
Appeal dismissed except for mesne profits and possession over items mentioned in paragraph 27 of the written statement.
Legal Topics
Bihar Land Reforms Act, Khas Possession, Partition, Title and Possession, Estates Partition Act
Land Reforms Civil Procedure Bihar Land Reforms Act Khas Possession Partition Title and Possession Estates Partition Act

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 5 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

GURCHARAN SINGH

Appellant

KAMLA SINGH

Respondent

U. P. Singh

Appellant

A. K. Srivastava

Respondent

M. S. Narasimhan

Respondent

B. P. Singh

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal by Special Leave

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether section 6 of Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 applied to exclude vesting of suit lands in the State
  2. 2 Whether a pure question of law based on undisputed facts could be raised for the first time at appeal
  3. 3 Whether actual or constructive possession amounts to 'khas possession' under the Act

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff was not in 'khas possession' of the suit lands within the meaning of section 6, as actual possession (not mere right or constructive possession) is required; hence, his title vested in the State under sections 3 and 4 of the Act. Without title, he could not maintain possession claim except over certain items admitted to be outside the contesting defendants' possession.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed except for mesne profits and possession over items mentioned in paragraph 27 of the written statement.

Orders

  • Decree for mesne profits up to January 1, 1956 for items found in possession of defendants, first party.
  • Decree for possession of items covered by paragraph 27 of defendants' written statement, subject to rights of the State and third parties.