Skip to content


Basdeo Vs. Ulfat Rai and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTenancy
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1915)ILR37All22
AppellantBasdeo
RespondentUlfat Rai and ors.
Excerpt:
adverse possession - right acquired by--exproprietary tenancy. - cantonments act[c.a. no. 41/2006]. section 346 & cantonment fund (servants rules, 1937, rules 13, 14 & 15: [h.l. gokhale, ag. cj, p.v. hardas, naresh h. patil, r.m. borde & r.m. savant, jj] jurisdiction of school tribunal constituted under maharashtra employees of private schools (conditions of service) regulations act, (3 of 1978) held, school run by the cantonment board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such board comparable to the divisional board or the state board. the school tribunal constituted under section 8 of the maharashtra act cannot entertain appeals filed under section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the cantonment board. teacher..........has been without any title. this prima facie would give the defendants an absolute title by adverse possession and it would be upon the persons who were entitled to possession to explain and show that the possession of the defendants was not adverse. the learned judge of this court says : 'my own opinion is that the appellant in the present case must be held to have acquired the status of an exproprietary tenant by adverse possession for twelve years and more.' we do not think that a person can acquire the 'status' of an exproprietary tenant by adverse possession. true it is that a lease-hold or an exproprietary interest can be acquired by adverse possession as against the person who is the lessee or the exproprietary tenant. but we do not think that where there never has been a.....
Judgment:

Henry Richards, C.J. and Banerji, J.

1. We are not prepared to endorse as a matter of law that the defendants became under the circumstances exproprietary tenants by reason of being in possession of the property. We are inclined to think that the defendants acquired an absolute title to the property. They have admittedly been in possession ever since the year 1891 and such possession has been without any title. This prima facie would give the defendants an absolute title by adverse possession and it would be upon the persons who were entitled to possession to explain and show that the possession of the defendants was not adverse. The learned Judge of this Court says : 'My own opinion is that the appellant in the present case must be held to have acquired the status of an exproprietary tenant by adverse possession for twelve years and more.' We do not think that a person can acquire the 'status' of an exproprietary tenant by adverse possession. True it is that a lease-hold or an exproprietary interest can be acquired by adverse possession as against the person who is the lessee or the exproprietary tenant. But we do not think that where there never has been a lessee or exproprietary tenant that it is possible to become such by adverse possession. The respondents have filed no objection to the decision and have not claimed to be proprietors, and therefore we cannot interfere with the decree of this Court. The result is that the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //