11 M. I. A. 345

 ဆရာကြီးဦးမြသင်ကြားပို့ချချက်များ

(1943) 45 Bombay Law Reports 275 ( P C )အမှုတွင်-

“PRIVY COUNCIL [ON APPEAL FROM THEEAST INDIES]

MEMBERS OF THE JUDICIAL COMMITTEE, - THE MASTER OF THE ROLLS (THE RIGHT HON. LORD ROMILLY, THE RIGHT HON. SIR JAMES WILLIAM COLVILE, THE RIGHT HON. SIR EDWARD VAUGHAN WILLIAMS, AND THE RIGHT HON. SIR RICHARD TORIN KINDERSLEY 

GUNGA GOBIND MUNDUL - Appellant 

                         Versus

THE COLLECTOR OF THE TWENTY-FOUR PERGUNNAHS - Respondents 

On appeal from the High Court of Judicature at Fort William, Bengal.

Decided On: February 22 25 & 26, and March 4, 1867.

1866 11 M.I.A. 345 at p.361, 1867 0 Supreme(SC) 8, that if the owner whose property is encroached upon suffers his right to be barred by the law of limitation, “the practical effect is the extinction of his title in favour of the party in possession.”

ကျူးကျော်ခြင်းခံရသည့်ပစ္စည်းပိုင်ရှင်သည်၊ကာလစည်းကမ်းသတ်ဥပဒေအရမိမိအခွင့်အရေးကိုအပိတ်ပင်ခံလျှင်၊လက်တွေ့အကျိုးသက်ရောက်မှုမှာလက်ရှိဖြစ်သည့်အမှုသည်၏အကျိုးငှါမိမိ၏ပိုင်ဆိုင်ခွင့်ဆိတ်သုဉ်းခြင်းဖြစ်သည်ဟုထုံးဖွဲ့ထားခြင်းကိုကိုးကားဆုံးဖြတ်သည်။

သို့ဖြစ်ရာ”၁၂နှစ်ကျော်ပစ္စည်းကိုဆန့်ကျင်လက်ရှိထားသူသည်ပစ္စည်းပိုင်ရှင်ဖြစ်လာသည်”ဆိုသောဥပဒေသမှာ၊ပရီဗီကောင်စီကအထက်ပါစီရင်ထုံး၌၊၁၈၆၇ခုနှစ်ကတည်းကပြဆိုခဲ့သောဥပဒေသဖြစ်သည်။

11 M. I. A. ဆိူသည်မှာ၊ M သည်ပရီဗီကောင်စီ၊စီရင်ထုံးစာအုပ်ကိုပြုစုထုတ်ဝေသော Moore ဆိုသူဖြစ်ပြီး၊ I. A. ဆိုသည်မှာ Indian Appeals ၏အတိုကောက်ဖြစ်၍၊ 11 မှာ Moore ထုတ်ဝေသောစီရင်ထုံးများ၏အတွဲအမှတ်ဖြစ်သည်။

မြန်မာနိုင်ငံ၏ကာလစည်းကမ်းသတ်အက်ဥပဒေမှာအင်္ဂလန်နိုင်ငံကာလစည်းကမ်းသတ်ဥပဒေအပေါ်အခြေခံကာရေးဆွဲထားသည်မှာယုံမှားဖွယ်မရှိ။

သို့ဖြစ်ရာ၊ကာလစည်းကမ်းသတ်အက်ဥပဒေအပိုင်း(၄)၏ခေါင်းစီးဖြစ်သော”Acquisition of Ownership by Possession “(လက်ရှိဖြစ်ခြင်းကြောင့်ပိုင်ရှင်မြောက်ခြင်း)ပြဌာန်းချက်သည်အထက်ပါပရီဗီကောင်စီ၊စီရင်ထုံး၏အနှစ်ချုပ်ကိုထင်ဟပ်ပြဌာန်းပုံပေါ်သည်။

(1943) 45 BOMLR 275( P C)စီရင်ထုံးတွင်၊(1867) 11 M. I. A. 345(361)ရှိမြွက်ဆိုချက်ကိုပရီဗီကောင်စီကပင်ကိုးကားပြီးနောက်၊မြန်မာနိုင်ငံကာလစည်းကမ်းသတ်အက်ဥပဒေပုဒ်မ၂၈နှင့်ပြဌာန်းချက်ချင်းတူသော၊ The Indian Limitation Act ၊ပုဒ်မ၂၈ကိုကိုးကားပြီး၊”၁၂နှစ်ကျော်မြေကိုလက်ရှိထားသူသည်ပိုင်ရှင်ဖြစ်သွားသည်”ဟုဆုံးဖြတ်ထားသည်ကိုတွေ့မြင်နိုင်သည်။

————————————————-

Madras High Court

Maniappa Udayam And Ors. vs Sabapathi Asari And Anr. 

on 16 February, 1927

Equivalent citations: 105 Ind Cas 202

Author: Wallace

Bench: Wallace

JUDGMENT Wallace, J.

အမှုတွင်၊စီရင်ချက်စာမျက်နှာ၁၊အပိုဒ်၁တွင်လက်ရောက်ရလိုမှုစွဲဆိုကြောင်းအောက်ပါအတိုင်းဖော်ပြသည်-

“The original suit was for recovery of the plaint property, Survey Field No. 12/1, measuring about 2 1/2 acres. The plaintiffs' claim was by virtue of a long possession and prescriptive title, the defendants' claim in virtue of a patta issued by Government. Either the land or the assessment of the land constituted a blacksmith inam, but neither the plaintiffs nor the defendants belong to the family of the original holders of the inam. On a decision as to which constituted the inam rests the decision of the case.”

အပိုဒ်၂တွင်မူလတရားရုံးနှင့်အယူခံတရားရုံးတို့၏ဆုံးဖြတ်ချက်များကိုအောက်ပါအတိုင်းဖော်ပြသည်-

“2. The first Court recorded a finding that the inam consisted of the assessment only. The lower Appellate Court accepted that finding in one part of its judgment, para. 4, and in another part, para. 3, remarked that 'that the land formed part of the blacksmith inam cannot be denied.' It is argued that in the latter sentence, the lower Appellate Court is using language loosely, but I am not able to accept that argument. The whole of the discussion in para. 3 of its judgment is with reference to possession and enjoyment of the land and the conclusion is that plaintiffs and their predecessors were in possession and enjoyment of the land for over 12 years prior to suit, having been let into possession because they were doing blacksmith's service for the village so that the enjoyment of the land was by way of remuneration for the service. The reasonable deduction from, such a letting into possession would be that the land itself was the inam. The findings of the lower Appellate Court, therefore, present some inconsistency on this vital point.”

စီရင်ချက်စာမျက်နှာ၂နှင့်၃၊အပိုဒ်၅၊၆၊၇၊၈တို့တွင်၊တရားလိုသည်”prescriptive title”မရရှိနိုင်ကြောင်းစီရင်ထုံးများစွာကိုကိုးကားသုံးသပ်၍တရားလို၏အမှုကိုပလပ်ကြောင်းအောက်ပါအတိုင်းဆုံးဖြတ်သည်-

5. That being so, Government had by the resumption the right to instal whom it pleased in the occupancy right of the land, and a grant of patta to the defendants followed. That prima facie put an end to any claim which the plaintiffs had to the occupancy right in the land. If Government, at the time of resumption, ousted them and entered into possession, any prescriptive title which they may have acquired before the date short of a prescriptive title against Government, will not avail them to defeat the right of a party who has been granted patta by Government in pursuance of Government's right to confer the land on resumption on whom it pleased.

6. This has been laid down by this High Court in several cases by Phillips and Odgers, JJ., in Ramakrishnayya v. Pitchayya 91 Ind. Cas. 165: (1925) M.W.N. 480: 48 M.L.J. 500 : 21 L. W. 474 : A.I.R. 1925 Mad. 726, by Devadoss, J., in Venkata Rao v. Mango Rao 87 Ind. Cas. 376 : (1925) M.W.N. 808 : 49 M.L.J. 71 : A.I.R. 1925 Mad. 1184, by Odgers, J., in Krishna Sastri v. Singaravelu Mudaliar 91 Ind. Cas. 130 : (1925) M.W.N. 218 : 48 M.L.J. 470 : A. I.R. 1925 Mad. 780 : 48 M. 570 and myself in Gourikantam v. Ramamurthy 80 Ind. Cas. 557 : 46 M.L.J. 482 : 34 M.L.T. 234 : 19 L.W. 663 : (1924) M.W.N. 565 : A.I.R. 1924 Mad. 783 which was confirmed on Letters Patent Appeal. The plaintiffs refer me to Gunga Gobind Mundul v. Collector of the 24-Pergunnahs 11 M.I.A. 345: 7 W.R.P.C. 21 : 1 Suth P.C.J. 676 : 2 Sar. P.C.J. 284 : 20 E.R. 131, but I do not find that case in point as there it was held that Government had no right to the land but only a right to the assessment; nor was it in a case in which Government had exercised its undoubted right to resume a service inam. Plaintiffs have also pointed out that in Ayyagari Venkata Suryanarayana v. Makka Venku Naidu 97 Ind. Cas. 253 : A.I.R. 1926 Mad. 1155 in this Court the correctness of a portion of my view in Gourikantam v. Ramamurthy 80 Ind. Cas. 557: 46 M.L.J. 482 : 34 M.L.T. 234: 19 L.W. 663 : (1924) M.W.N. 565 : A.I.R. 1924 Mad. 783, was doubted. But even in that judgment, in the order of reference by Ramesam, J., he lays down that the Privy Council have now held that enfranchisement constitutes a fresh grant and that if the Crown takes physical possession and hands it over to a grantee, a long prior possession by a previous occupant, short of 60 years will not avail, and the same view was adopted in the judgment itself. Now here there is no doubt, since it is part of the plaintiffs' own case and has been found by the trial Court and almost goes without saying from the action of the Tahsildar who, in obedience to the Collector's order to issue patta to the occupancy owners, issued patta to the defendants, that plaintiffs' possession had come to an end before or about the time of the resumption, and that the defendants, did get into possession in pursuance of the patta issued to them on the resumption. So this judgment also does not avail the plaintiffs

7. Plaintiffs have not contended that they perfected a prescriptive title against Government prior to the resumption, nor could they maintain that in face of the finding that they got into possession only on the death of Annamalai Asari some 30 years ago.

8. I must, therefore, hold that the plaintiffs have no right to eject the defendants. I reverse the decision of the lowerCourts and dismiss the plaintiffs' suit with costs in all Courts.”

——————————————————————

1966 BLR ( C C ) 556 

MA THAN KYI AND SIX OTHERS(APPELLANTs)

                            V.

DAW GE (RESPONDENT).

Before U Thet Pe, J

အမှုတွင်၊တရားသူကြီးဦးသက်ဖေကအောက်ပါအတိုင်းဆုံးဖြတ်သည်-

“Suit for recovery of possession of a house site -infructuous sale deed--evidence of possession of the site as purchaser not as licensee--adverse possession from the date of invalid sale-Limitation Act, Article 144.

Held : The infructuous sale deed clearly shows that the respondens had been in possession of the land not in the capacity of a licensee as alleged by the appellants but in the capacity of an owner after her purchase from U Po Kyan, father of the appellants. Since the respondent came into and remained in possession of the property after the execution of the unregistered sale deed, her possession became adverse to the vendor from the date of the invalid sale and & suit by the vendor or his successor-in-title after the lapse of 12 years from that date would undoubtedly be barred under Article 144, Limitation Act.

Qadar Bakhsh and others v. Mangha Mal and others. A.I.R. (1923) Lah.495. 

Sohar Lal v. Mohan Lal, I.L.R. 50 All. 986 at 997 ; 

Mahipal Singh v. Sarjoo Prasad. A.I.R. (1926) Oudh, 141 : 

Mi. Jasoda Kuar v. Janak Missri and others, A.J.R. (1925) Pat. 787, referred to.”

စီရင်ထုံးစာမျက်နှာ၅၅၉နှင့်၅၆၀တွင်၊တရားသူကြီးဦးသက်ဖေကကိုးကားထားသောစီရင်ထုံးများတွင်လည်းအလားတူထုံးဖွဲ့ထားသည်ကိုအောက်ပါအတိုင်းတွေ့မြင်နိုင်သည်-

“Then the appellants must also fail on the merits of the case as well.

It is no longer in dispute that the respondent had been in possession of the suit land after her purchase from the late U Po Kyan, the father of the appellants for a sum of K 1so by means of a sale deed dated Ist March 1947 (Exhibit 1). 

Since this sale deed, though compulsorily registrable under section 17 of the Registration Act, had not been registered it does not affect the suit property nor can it be received as evidence of any transaction affecting the suit property. 

But under proviso to  section 49. Registration Act, the respondent is entitled to use it in evidence for the purpose of proving a collateral purpose, namely, the nature or character of the possession and how she had come upon the suit land vide Qadar Bakhsh and others v. Mangha Mal and others (1) A.I.R. (1923) Lah. 495. where it was held that:

" A document, although inadmissible for want of registra-tion, to prove title, may be referred to in order to ascertain the nature of the possession sought to be disturbed."

'The infructuous sale deed clearly shows that the respondent had been in possession of the land not in the capacity of a license as alleged by the appellants but in the capacitv of an owner after her purchase from U Po Kyan, father of the appellants. Since the respondent came into and remained in possession of the property after the execution of the unregistered sale deed, her possession became adverse to the vendor from the date of the invalid sale and a suit by the vendor or his successor-in-title after the lapse of 12 years from that date would undoubtedly be barred under Article 144, Limitation Act. Thus in Sohan Lal v. Mohan Lal (6) I. L.R. 50 All. 986 at 997.Mukerii, I., who wrote the leading judgment  had remarked that:

...Where in an intended sale, which can be effected in law only by a registered document, no such document is executed and yet the intending purchaser gets possession, he gets possession with the consent of the intending vendor; but, nonetheless, the purchaser's possession begins adversely to the vendor. If the intending purchaser be fortunate enough to continue, undisturbed by the vendor, in possession for a2 years, he would acquire a perfect title as against the former owner, the vendor. ••

The same view has been expressed in Mahipal Singh v. Sarjoo Prasad (7)A.I.R. (196a) Oudh 111. the relevant head-note of which reads:

" If the possession is acquired by a person under an invalid title and he continues to remain in possession for more than 12 years, although the document relating to his title may be invalid for want of registration or any other ground yet the possession having lasted for more than 12 years the title be comes an unassailable one."

It has also been ruled in Mt. Jasoda Kuar v. Janak Missir and others (8)A. I.R. (1925) Pat. 787. that:

"Even when a registered sale deed is found to be illegal, the purchaser gets full title to the property purchased, if he is put in possession in pursuance of the registered deed and continues to be in possession for over twelve years openly and adversely to the vendor."

————————————