Skip to content


Maharaja of Jaipur and anr. Vs. Surjan Singh - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1922All333; 75Ind.Cas.495
AppellantMaharaja of Jaipur and anr.
RespondentSurjan Singh
Cases ReferredTadman v. Henman
Excerpt:
.....can be exercised by additional collector under section 198(4) of 1950 act, provided he has been so directed by collector of the district. [1996 aihc 3628 overruled]. - it is perfectly clear that neither the maharaja nor amar nath was a tenant of the house in question, nor did they claim through ramji sahai who was the tenant, and, further, there was then no tenancy......the premises on the 6th of october 1916. three days after he had vacated, the premises, pandit amar nath took possession of them under the permission, of the maharaja of jaipur, who claimed the house as having escheated to him after the death of sukharaji. surjan singh instituted the suit out of which this appeal arises for the ejectment of ramji sahai and pandit amar nath. the suit was instituted on the 14th of march 1918 about eighteen months after ramji sahai had left the premises. the object, apparently, including ramji sahai as a defendant when he palpably could not be ejected, was to raise a plea which has been decided in the plaintiff's favour by the lower appellate court. pandit amar nath naturally, put up the defence that he was holding with the permission of the maharaja.....
Judgment:

1. The facts of the suit out of which this appeal arises can be stated very shortly as follows:--There is a small house in Katra, Allahabad City, standing within an area of 35 acres. This area is owned by His Highness the Maharaja of Jaipur, This small house was previously occupied by a woman called Musammat Sukharaji. She died about 1907. Before her death she had let the house to a man named Ramji Sahai. He continued to occupy it after her death. There was a man called Sukhu Nut with whom Sukharaji had been living as his mistress. On her death, Ramji Sahai continued to pay rent to Srkhu Nut, Then Sukhu Nut died. After his death Ramji Sahai paid rent to Musammat' Raghunathi, who was a subsequent mistress of Sukhu Nut. When Musammat Raghunathi died she made a Will in favourer of a man called Surjan Singh, the plaintiff-respondent in this appeal, by which she bequeathed him the house in question We have it that Ramji Sahai vacated the premises on the 6th of October 1916. Three days after he had vacated, the premises, Pandit Amar Nath took possession of them under the permission, of the Maharaja of Jaipur, who claimed the house as having escheated to him after the death of Sukharaji. Surjan Singh instituted the suit out of which this appeal arises for the ejectment of Ramji Sahai and Pandit Amar Nath. The suit was instituted on the 14th of March 1918 about eighteen months after Ramji Sahai had left the premises. The object, apparently, including Ramji Sahai as a defendant when he palpably could not be ejected, was to raise a plea which has been decided in the plaintiff's favour by the lower Appellate Court. Pandit Amar Nath naturally, put up the defence that he was holding with the permission of the Maharaja and, in consequence, the Maharaja was joined as a defendant. Ramji Sahai took no interest in the decision of the suit. He Would not take any interest in it as he had left the premises. He contested the suit, but not seriously. The Maharaja of Jaipur and Pandit Amar Nath took as their defence the obvious defence as to the title of Surjan Singh The Maharaja. claimed by escheat but. he was content to put the plaintiff to proof of his title. The a plea was put forward that the Maharaja and Amar Nath could not question Surjan Singh's title under Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act. This plea of estoppel has found favour with the lower Appellate Court but it does not find favour with us. It is perfectly clear that neither the Maharaja nor Amar Nath was a tenant of the house in question, nor did they claim through Ramji Sahai who was the tenant, and, further, there was then no tenancy. There can be no estoppel against them. The learned Subordinate Judge has found collusion between Ramji Sahai and Amar Nath. On the facts, as he has found, there was no collusion at all. In any circumstances, the ordinary doctrine winch, was land down in Tadman v. Henman (1893) 2 Q.B. 168 : 5 R. 479 : 57 J.P. 664, that third persons not claiming possession of land under the tenant re not estopped, has application. The Maharaja. and Amar Nath, who are the sole appellants in this case, have every night to put Surjan Singh; to proof of his title. They put him to proof of his title in the Court below and there can be no doubt as to the fact that he his been unable to establish, any title. The question of the estoppel, of Ramji Sahai is of no importance in the decision of this appeal, for he has not appealed. We, therefore, decree this appeal and direct that Surjan Singh's suit against His Highness the Maharaja of Jaipur, and Pandit Amar Nath stand dismissed and we direct that Surjan Singh pay his own costs in this appeal and the costs of the Maharaja of Jaipur and Pandit Amar Nath in all Courts.


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