၂၀၀၃ မတစ ၁၄၀ ( စုံညီ )၊ ဒေါ်သီတာပါ၃ နှင့် ဒေါ်ကျင်ရွှေ

ဆရာကြီးဦးမြသင်ကြားပို့ချချက်များ

၂၀၀၃ခုနှစ်မြန်မာနိုင်ငံတရားစီရင်ထုံးများစာ၁၄၀(စုံညီ)

(ဒေါ်သီတာပါ၃ နှင့် ဒေါ်ကျင်ရွှေ)အမှု၊

စီရင်ထုံးစာမျက်နှာ၁၄၈တွင်အောက်ပါအတိုင်းသုံးသပ်ဆုံးဖြတ်ထားသည်-

" သက်သေခံအမှတ်၁အပိုင်ပေးစာချုပ်သည်ယာယီမှတ်ပုံတင်စာချုပ်သာဖြစ်၍၊ပစ္စည်းလွှဲပြောင်းခြင်းဥပဒေပုဒ်မ၁၂၃အရပေးကမ်းခြင်းမမြောက်ပေ။သို့ရာတွင်ယင်းစာချုပ်အရအချင်းဖြစ်ပစ္စည်းကိုလက်ဝယ်ရသူအနေဖြင့်မည်သို့အကျိုးသက်ရောက်သည်ကိုစိစစ်ရန်ဖြစ်သည်။

ပျက်ပြယ်သောအပိုင်ပေးစာချုပ်အရပေးသောပစ္စည်းကိုအပိုင်ရသူ(donee)ကလက်ရှိထားခြင်းသည်၊ပိုင်ရှင်အားဆန့်ကျင်လက်ရှိထားခြင်းဖြစ်သည်။ဒေါ်လွန်းပါ၅ နှင့် ဒေါ်သိန်းရင်အမှု(၁၉၉၁ခုနှစ်၊မြန်မာနိုင်ငံတရားစီရင်ထုံး၊စာ-၁၄၉)ကိုကြည့်ပါ။

ထိုဥပဒေသဘောအရ၊မှတ်ပုံမတင်သောအပိုင်ပေးစာချုပ်အရအပိုင်ရသူလက်ရှိထားခြင်းသည်လည်း၊အပိုင်ပေးသူ​၏ဆက်ခံသူတို့အား၊#ဆန့်ကျင်လက်ရှိထားရာရောက်သည်။

ဤမူသဘောကို၊ N . Varada Pillai and another vs. Jeevarathnammal ( AIR 1919 ( PC ) 44 )အမှုနှင့်၊ Gayani Sahu vs. Balchand Sahu and others ( AIR 1924 Patna 341 )အမှုတို့တွင်တွေ့ရသည်။ "

အထမမြောက်သောလွှဲပြောင်းမှုအရလက်ရှိထားခြင်း

အထမမြောက်သောလွှဲပြောင်းမှုအရပစ္စည်းကိုလက်ရောက်ရပြီး၊လက်ရှိထားခြင်းသည်ပိုင်ရှင်အားဆန့်ကျင်သည်။( ဆာရာဂျူးလ်ဟက် နှင့် ဒွီဂျင်ဒရာမိုဟန်၊ အေအိုင်အာ၊၁၉၄၁၊ ကာလကတ္တား၃၃ )

အကြောင်းမှာလွှဲပြောင်းလက်ခံရသူသည်၊လွှဲပြောင်းမှုအရဆိုင်ရေးဆိုင်ခွင့်မရသဖြင့်၊လက်ရှိထားခြင်းသည်ပိုင်ရေးပိုင်ခွင့်မရှိပဲထားခြင်းဖြစ်ပြီး၊ပိုင်ရှင်​၏ပိုင်ဆိုင်ခွင့်ကိုထိပါးခြင်းကြောင့်ဖြစ်သည်။သို့ဖြစ်ရာအေသည်၊မှတိပုံမတင်သောစာချုပ်ချုပ်ဆို၍မြေတကွက်ကိုဘီအားလက်ရောက်ပေးကမ်းရာတွင်၊ဘီသည်မြေအတွင်းဝင်ရောက်သည့်နေ့မှစ၍အေအားဆန့်ကျင်လက်ရှိထားရာရောက်သည်။

( ဗာရာဒါပီလေး နှင့် ဂျီဗာရပ်(သ်)နာမားလ်၊အေအိုင်အာ၊၁၉၁၉၊(ပီစီ)၄၄ )

( ဂါရန်နီဆာဟူး နှင့် ဘာလ်ချန်ဆာဟူး၊အေအိုင်အာ၊၁၉၂၄၊ပတ္တနာ၊၃၄၁ )

AIR 1924 Patna 341

Gayani Sahu v. Balchand Sahu And Others

(High Court Of Judicature At Patna)

15-02-1923

 Ross, J.—This is an appeal by defendant first party against the decree of the Subordinate Judge of Muza!arpur reversing so much of the decree of the Munsif of Motihari as dismissed the suit of the plainti!s against the defendant No. 1, The suit as first framed was a suit for a declaration of plainti!s title to certain plots of land in Khata No. 153 of the Record of Rights of Mauza Patora. One Gudari Sahu had three sons and one daughter. Tie plainti!s represent two of the sons, the defendant second party the third son, and defendant first party is the daughters son. The plainti!s alleged that the land in suit was the joint property of themselves and defendant second party and had been wrongly recorded in the Record of Rights as being in possession of defendant No. 1 who had no concern with it. A Criminal case about one of the plots having been decided against the plainti!s, they brought the suit for a declaration that the defendant first party had no connection with the land in suit which belonged to the plainti!s and defendant second party and that the entry in the Record of Rights was wrong. The defence of defendant No. 1 was that the suit was barred by 12 years limitation as the plainti!s had not been in possession for more than several 12 years. It was also barred by Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act and by estoppel. The land had been given to defendant first party by his maternal uncle after the death, and by the direction, of his maternal grandfather Gudari Sahu about 20 years ago. 15 or 16 years ago he had separated from the others. Tawan was paid separately to the Motihari concern for this land by the defendant No. 1 and he was separately recorded for it by the landlord and he had in any case acquired title by 12 years adverse possession. To meet the objection about Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act the plaint was amended and the plainti!s prayed for recovery of possession. The Record of Rights showed Khata No. 153 as part of the joint holding of plainti!s and defendant second party but in possession of defendant No. 1. The Munsif on a consideration of the evidence held that this entry was correct and that the plainti!s had failed to prove possession within 12 years and dismissed the suit. The Subordinate Judge came to no decision as to possession. He held that the gift alleged by the defendant was invalid for want of a registered document and for want of evidence of consent of all the members of the family. If, therefore, the defendant was in possession, his possession in the absence of a gift must be held to permissive and on this ground he decreed the suit. In this view the learned Subordinate Judge was clearly wrong. It is nowhere pleaded by the plainti!s that the defendants possession was permissive; it was simply denied. At the time of the amendment of the plaint by the addition of the prayer for recovery of possession, no amendment of the body of the plaint seems to have been made and there is no allegation of possession by defendant No. 1 except possibly as to Plot No. 445. Permissive possession is not the case of either party and, so far as can be seen from the judgment, there was no evidence of it. One of the plainti!s witnesses seemed to support the story of gift as found by the Munsif. The Subordinate Judge was, therefore, not entitled to decree the suit on a purely hypothetical explanation of the defendants possession. Thus, in Shivabasava v. Sangappo [1905] 29 Bom. 1, the Judicial Committee held that where the Court disposed of a suit on a case not raised by the parties and to which evidence had not been directed, there was a substantial error or defect of procedure. Moreover, when the defendant failed to prove the gift the conclusion to be drawn was not that his possession was permissive but that it was that of trespasser: Sambu v. Nama [1911] 35 Bom. 438. The result of this error is that the Subordinate Judge has not properly considered whether the defence evidence amounts to proof of title by adverse possession. A further consequence is that he has not considered at all whether the plainti!s have proved possession within 12 years as they were clearly bound to do, the suit being a suit for recovery of possession and governed by Article 142 of the Limitation Act.

2. In my opinion, therefore, there has been no proper trial of this appeal. The present appeal is decreed and the decree of the Subordinate Judge is set aside and the appeal remanded for re- hearing. Costs will abide the result.