11 Moore I. A. 345

 ဆရာကြီးဦးမြသင်ကြားပို့ချချက်များ

ကာလစည်းကမ်းသတ်အက်ဥပဒေပုဒ်မ၂၈တွင်၊ပစ္စည်းလက်ရောက်ရလိုကြောင်းတရားစွဲဆိုခြင်းအတွက်၊အက်ဥပဒေအရကန့်သတ်ထားသည့်ကာလအပိုင်းအခြားကုန်ဆုံးသောအခါတွင်[ထိုပစ္စည်းပိုင်ဆိုင်ခွင့်သည်လည်းကုန်ဆုံးပြတ်စဲစေရမည်။]ဟုပြဌာန်းထားသည်။

ထိုပုဒ်မ၌ရည်ညွှန်းထားသောလက်ရောက်ရလိုမှုနှင့်သက်ဆိုင်သည့်ပြဌာန်းချက်များတွင်၊အမှတ်စဉ်၁၃၆နှင့်၁၄၄တို့ပါဝင်သည်။

ကာလစည်းကမ်းသတ်အက်ဥပဒေပုဒ်မ၂၈ပါပြဌာန်းချက်ကိုအမှတ်စဉ်၁၃၆နှင့်၁၄၄ပါပြဌာန်းချက်များနှင့်ဆက်စပ်သတ္တုချကြည့်လျင်၊ကာလစည်းကမ်းသတ်အက်ဥပဒေပုဒ်မ၂၈နှင့်သက်ဆိုင်ရန်[တရားလိုသည်လက်ရောက်ရရန်တရားစွဲဆိုသောပစ္စည်းတွင်ပိုင်ဆိုင်ခွင့်ရှိသူဖြစ်ကြောင်းထင်ရှားသည်။]

အချင်းဖြစ်ပစ္စည်းတွင်ပိုင်ဆိုင်ခွင့်ရှိသူမဟုတ်လျှင်၊ကာလစည်းကမ်းသတ်အက်ဥပဒေပုဒ်မ၂၈အရပစ္စည်းပိုင်ဆိုင်ခွင့်ကုန်ဆုံးပြတ်စဲရန်အကြောင်းမရှိ၍၊ကာလစည်းကမ်းသတ်အက်ဥပဒေပုဒ်မ၂၈နှင့်သက်ဆိုင်ရန်အကြောင်းမရှိနိုင်။

ထိုသို့ဆိုလျှင်၊အချင်းဖြစ်ပစ္စည်းကိုမပိုင်သူစွဲဆိုသောအမှုသည်၊အမှတ်စဉ်၁၃၆နှင့်ဖြစ်စေ၊အမှတ်စဉ်၁၄၄နှင့်ဖြစ်စေသက်ဆိုင်ရန်အကြောင်းမရှိ။

————————————————————

11 Moore I. A. 345 

GUNGA GOBIND MUNDUL and others -Appellants,

                        And

The Collector of the Twenty-Four Pergunnahs and others.- Respondents.

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

Present: Members of the Judicial Committe- The Master of the Rolls (The Right Hon. Lord Romilly), the Right Hon. Sir James Willian Colvile, the Right Hon. Sir Edward Vaughan Williams, and the Right Hon. Sir Richard Torin Kindersley.

Assessor, —The Right Hon. Sir Lawrence Peel.

စီရင်ထုံးစာမျက်နှာ၃၆၁တွင်၊အောက်ပါအတိုင်းသုံးသပ်ဆုံးဖြတ်သည်-

[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.”]

[ကျူးကျော်ခြင်းခံရသည့်ပစ္စည်းပိုင်ရှင်သည်ကာလစည်းကမ်းသတ်အက်ဥပဒေအရမိမိအခွင့်အရေးကိုအပိတ်ပင်ခံလျှင်လက်တွေ့အကျိုးသက်ရောက်မှုမှာလက်ရှိဖြစ်သည့်အမှုသည်၏အကျိုးငှာမိမိ၏ပိုင်ဆိုင်ခွင့်ဆိတ်သုဉ်းခြင်းဖြစ်သည်ဟုဆုံးဖြတ်ပါသည်။]

သို့ဖြစ်ရာ[၁၂ နှစ်ကျော်ပစ္စည်းကိုဆန့်ကျင်လက်ရှိထားသူသည်ပစ္စည်းပိုင်ရှင်ဖြစ်လာသည်]ဆိုသောဥပဒေသမှာပရီဗီကောင်စီက၁၈၆၇ ခုနှစ်ကတည်းကပြဆိုခဲ့သောဥပဒေသဖြစ်သည်။

——————————————————-

11 M. I. A.ဆိုသည်မှာ M သည်ပရီဗီကောင်စီ၊စီရင်ထုံးစာအုပ်ကိုပြုစုထုတ်ဝေသော Moore ဆိုသူဖြစ်ပြီး-

I. A.ဆိုသည်မှာ Indian Appeals ၏အတိုကောက်ဖြစ်၍-

11 မှာ Moore ထုတ်ဝေသောစီရင်ထုံးမျာ၏အတွဲအမှတ်ဖြစ်သည်။

English barrister Edmund F. Moore အကြောင်းကို၊ Wikipedia တွင်၊အောက်ပါအတိုင်းဖော်ပြထားသည်-

[ Moore's Indian Appeals is a 14-volume set of nominate reports by English barrister Edmund F. Moore, published in London from 1837 to 1872 under the full title of Reports of Cases Heard and Determined by the Judicial Committee and the Lords of His Majesty's most Honourable Privy Council on Appeal from the Supreme and Sudder Dewanny Courts in the East Indies,but more usually referred to as Moore's Indian Appeals and cited for example as: Mootti Mohummud Ubdoollah v. Baboo Mootechund 1 M.I.A.383.

The Moore's Indian Appeals carries reports published from the year 1836 to 1872 in 14 Volumes. 

The set is supplemented by Law Reports Indian Appeals which carries judgements from the year 1873 to 1950 and published in 79 Volumes. ]

—————————————————————

မြန်မာနိုင်ငံ၏ကာလစည်းကမ်းသတ်အက်ဥပဒေမှာအင်္ဂလန်နိုင်ငံကာလစည်းကမ်းသတ်ဥပဒေအပေါ်အခြေခံကာရေးဆွဲထားသည်မှာယုံမှားဖွယ်မရှိ။

သို့ဖြစ်ရာကာလစည်းကမ်းသတ်အက်ဥပဒေအပိုင်း ( ၄ )၏ခေါင်းစီးဖြစ်သော Acquisition  of  Ownership  by  Possession ( လက်ရှိဖြစ်ခြင်းကြောင့် ပိုင်ရှင်မြောက်ခြင်း ) ပြဌာန်းချက်သည်အထက်ပါပရီဗီကောင်စီစီရင်ထုံး၏အနှစ်ချုပ်ကိုထင်ဟပ်ပြဌာန်းပုံပေါ်သည်။

( 1943 ) 45 BOMLR 275 ( PC ) စီရင်ထုံးတွင်-

( 1867 ) 11 M . I . A . 345 ( 361 ) ရှိမြွက်ဆိုချက်ကိုပရီဗီကောင်စီကပင်ကိုးကားပြီးနောက်၊မြန်မာနိုင်ငံကာလစည်းကမ်းသတ်အက်ဥပဒေပုဒ်မ၂၈ နှင့်ပြဌာန်းချက်ခြင်းတူသော  The  Indian  Limitation  Act၊ပုဒ်မ၂၈ကိုကိုးကားပြီး"၁၂ နှစ်ကျော်မြေကိုလက်ရှိထားသူသည်ပိုင်ရှင်ဖြစ်သွားသည်"ဟုဆုံးဖြတ်ထားသည်ကိုတွေ့မြင်နိုင်သည်။

—————————————————-

11 Moore I. A. 345 

GUNGA GOBIND MUNDUL and others -Appellants,

                        And

The Collector of the Twenty-Four Pergunnahs and others.- Respondents.

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

Present: Members of the Judicial Committe- The Master of the Rolls (The Right Hon. Lord Romilly), the Right Hon. Sir James Willian Colvile, the Right Hon. Sir Edward Vaughan Williams, and the Right Hon. Sir Richard Torin Kindersley.

Assessor, —The Right Hon. Sir Lawrence Peel.

အမှုတွင်၊ပရီဗီကောင်စီကစီရင်ထုံးစာမျက်နှာ၃၄၅မှ၃၅၃အထိ၊အမှုအဖြစ်အပျက်ကိုဖော်ပြသည်။

အယူခံတရားလို Gunga Gobind Mundul ၏ရှေ့နေ Mr. Field, Q. C., and Mr.Pontifex တို့၏လျှောက်လဲချက်ကို၊စီရင်ထုံးစာမျက်နှာ၃၅၃မှ၃၅၅အထိဖော်ပြသည်။

အယူခံတရားပြိုင် the Collector of the Twenty-four Pergunnahs ၏ရှေ့နေ Mr. Forsyth, Q.C. (with whom was Mr. Mac naughten)၏လျှောက်လဲချက်ကို၊စီရင်ထုံးစာမျက်နှာ၃၅၅မှ၃၅၆အထိဖော်ပြသည်။

အယူခံတရားပြိုင် Prince Gholam Mahomed ၏ရှေ့နေ Sir R. Palmer, Q.C. (with whom was Mr.Leith.)၏လျှောက်လဲချက်ကိုစီရင်ထုံးစာမျက်နှာ၃၅၆မှ၃၅၇အထိဖော်ပြသည်။

ပရီဗီကောင်စီဝင်တရားသူကြီး Lord Romilly ၏သုံးသပ်ဆုံးဖြတ်ချက်ကိုစီရင်ထုံးစာမျက်နှာ၃၅၇မှ၃၆၈အထိဖော်ပြသည်။

ပရီဗီကောင်စီကစီရင်ထုံးစာမျက်နှာ၃၄၆၊ပထမအပိုဒ်တွင်အောက်ပါအတိုင်းဖော်ပြသည်-

[The Appellants, in answer, contended first, that the Collector did not establish this fact; secondly,if so, the Regulations of limitation of suits from long possession was a bar to the suit; and thirdly, that in any event, as the Government alleged that they were then actually in receipt of rent in respect of the land, the Collector was not entitled to maintain an action of ejectment to recover possession.]

စီရင်ထုံးစာမျက်နှာ၃၄၈၊ဒုတိယအပိုဒ်တွင်၊ပရီဗီကောင်စီကအောက်ပါအတိုင်းဖော်ပြသည်-

[The Appellants, Gunga Gobind Mundul and Romani Dossee, by their answers, which were in substance the same, insisted, first, that the suit should be dismissed as barred by adverse possession, under Ben. Reg. II. of 1805;]

စီရင်ထုံးစာမျက်နှာ၃၄၉နှင့်၃၅၀တွင်၊ပရီဗီကောင်စီကအောက်ပါအတိုင်းဖော်ပြသည်-

[The issues for trial were fixed by the Judge of the Zillah Court, when the Judge expressed himself as follows: " This is simply an ejectment action. 

We have to determine whether the lands are within or beyond the boundary of Holding No. 1, as set forth in the plaint, and, therefore, in the present ejectment suit, no question of resumption can be entered into. 

The case being dealt with as one of boundary, the only interruption to which action will be, adverse possession, with the onus of proof upon the Defendants setting up the plea. 

In bar, that the action of the Plaintifi is estopped by limitation of time. 

On the merits. 

For the Plaintiff, that the lands are within the Holding No. 1, the property of Government. 

For the Defendants, that the lands are not within the boundary of Holding No. 1; but La-khiraj lands distinct from the Mal lands of Government.]

စီရင်ထုံးစာမျက်နှာ၃၅၁၊ဒုတိယအပိုဒ်တွင်၊ပရီဗီကောင်စီကအောက်ပါအတိုင်းဖော်ပြသည်-

[The appeal was heard before Sir Charles Jackson and W. S. Seton Karr, two of the Judges of the High Court of Judicature, and on the 23rd of January, 1863, the Court gave Judgment declaring the Government entitled to possession of the disputed property, with costs of suit, but dismissing with costs the three suits instituted by the Prince Gholam Mahomed. 

The effect of the Chittahs of 1190, the Register Book of 1815 and 1816, and a Map of 1845 was fully considered in the Judgment.]

စီရင်ထုံးစာမျက်နှာ၃၅၂၊ဒုတိယအပိုဒ်နှင့်တတိယအပိုဒ်တွင်၊ပရီဗီကောင်စီကအောက်ပါအတိုင်းဖော်ပြသည်-

[The Appellant, Gunga Gobind Mundul, presented a petition for a review, upon the ground that, as the Register Book of the years 1815 and 1816 was filed for the first time in Court on the day of trial, he had had no opportunity to search for, and procure certain documents, which were filed with the petition, and which would, as the Petitioner alleged, show that the entries in the Register Book, relied upon by the Court, were false and fabricated.

The petition for review came on to be heard in the High Court, on the 13th of April, 1863, before W. S. Seton Karr, who refused the application with costs.]

စီရင်ထုံးစာမျက်နှာ၃၅၃၊၃၅၄တို့တွင်၊အယူခံတရားလို၏ရှေ့နေ Mr. Field, Q. C., and Mr. Pontifex တို့၏လျှောက်လဲတင်ပြချက်ကို၊ပရီဗီကောင်စီကအောက်ပါအတိုင်းဖော်ပြသည်-

[The evidence adduced to prove the identity of Holding No. 1, of 1833, with Dagh No. 1, of the Chittah of 1783, is altogether insufficient and untrustworthy, and in fact no such identity existed. 

The Register Book of 1815-1816 was improperly admitted as evidence. 

The entry there of a jumma in Green's name is the only fragment of evidence in the suit.

If it was a genuine document, why was it not produced earlier? 

The entry bears on the face of it evidence of its being fabricated to meet the case.

The Respondents' title to the land as Mal, was not proved; for the entries in the Registry Book only amount to a presumption of conveyance, but are no proof of title; on the contrary, the evidence established the Appellants' title;it shows that the land in dispute has for more than sixty years been in the actual uninterrupted rent-free enjoyment of the Appellants and their predecessors in title.

It is to be regretted that the difficulties which the Appellants' case in the Court below presented to the Respondent, the Prince Gholam Mahomed, in his three separate suits, induced the Government to take up his case, and on their part to bring a suit against the Appellant for possession only, without seeking a  declaration of their right to assess as Mal tenure.

The unfairness of this proceeding cannot be too strongly condemned. 

The Appellant and his ancestors at that time had been in bona fide possession as purchasers for more than thirty years, and the Prince's claim was absolutely barred by the Ben.Regulations of Limitation of Suits, III. 1793, sec. 14;VII., 1795, sec. 8; and II. of 1803, sec. 18. 

To avoid the effect of those Regulations he has been allowed to shield himself under the claim of the Government, who assert, contrary to the fact, that the lands were never La-khiraj, but Mal tenure, and that the prescription of sixty years prevail.

Muha Raja Dheeraj Rajah Mahatab Chund Bahadoor v. The Bengal Government (a). 4 Moore's Ind. App. Cases, 466.

If the Government, as they allege, are in actual receipt of the rent of the Holding No. 1, the present suit is not maintainable. 

A Court of equity will not give relief by making a declaration as to a claim which may be made by another under circumstances that may or may not happen: Jackson v. Turnley (a), 1 Drew, 617.Code of Civil Procedure, ch. I.,sec.15.]

စီရင်ထုံးစာမျက်နှာ၃၆၁၌၊ပရီဗီကောင်စီကအောက်ပါအတိုင်းသုံးသပ်သည်-

[The title to sue for dispossession of the lands belongs in such a case, to the owner whose property is encroached upon; and if he 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; see Sel. Rep.,vol. vi., p 139, cited in Macpherson, Civil Procedure, p. 81 (3rd ed.).

Now, in this case, the family represented by the Appellants is proved to have been upwards of thirty years in possession.

The High Court has decided that the Prince's title is barred; and the effect of that bar must operate in favour of the party in possession.]

စီရင်ထုံးစာမျက်နှာ၃၆၂နှင့်၃၆၃တွင်၊ပရီဗီကောင်စီ၏အောက်ပါသုံးသပ်ချက်မှာ၊မှတ်သားနာယူဖွယ်ဖြစ်သည်-

[It is of the utmost consequence in India that the security which long possession affords should not be weakened.

Disputes are eonstantly mising about boundaries and about the identity of lands,-contiguous owners are apt to charge one another with encroachments. 

If twelve years peaccable and un interrupted possession of lands, alleged to have been enjoyed by encroachment on the adjoining lands, can be proved, a purchaser may take that title in safety; but, if the party out of possession could set up a sixty years' law of limitation, merely by making common cause with a Collector, who could enjoy security against interruption? 

The true answer to such a contrivance is, the legal right of the Government is to its rent; the lands are owned by others:as between private owners contesting inter so the title to the lands, the law has established a limitation of twelve years; after that tine, it declares not simply that the remedy is barred, but that the title is extinct in favour of the possessor. 

The Government has no title to intervene in such contests, as its title to its rent in the nature of jamma is unaffected by transfer simply of proprietary right in the lands.

The liability of the lands to jamma is not affected by a transfer of propriotary right, whether such transfer is affected simply by transfer of title, or less directly by adverse occupation and the law of limitation.

Their Lordships are, therefore, of opinion, that this dispute us to the identity of the lands, which is subsantially the cause of action of the Prince alone, cannot bo kept alive longer than the legal period of limitation of twelve years, by the expedient of inducing the Collector to make common cause with him.]

စီရင်ထုံးစာမျက်နှာ၃၆၈၌၊ပရီဗီကောင်စီကနိဂုံးချုပ်အနေဖြင့်အောက်ပါအတိုင်းသုံးသပ်ဆုံးဖြတ်သည်-

[Objection to reception of those documents here was taken and allowed; and their Lordships have excluded them from their consideration. 

Upon the whole case, however, and for the reasons already given,their Lordships are satisfied that the suit of the Collector was properly dismissed by the Zillah Court ;and that this judgment, notwithstanding the fresh evidence produced, ought to have beon affirmed by the High Court.

Their Lordships wish it to be understood that this judgment leaves the subject of the liability of these lands to be assessed for jumma wholly untouched.

All that they decide, is the question of proprietary right, as between the contending private owners.

It may be right to observe that, in their Lordships' opinion, the provision in the Code of Procedure, which requires the Judges who admit fresh evidence on an appeal, to record their reasons, though not a condition precedent to the reception of the evidence, is yet one that ought at all times to be strictly complied with. 

It is a salutary provision, which operates as a check against a too easy reception of evidence at a late stage of litigation, and the statement of the reasons may inspire confidence and disarm objection. 

Their Lordships will humbly advise Her Majesty that the decision of the High Court be reversed with costs; and that the decision of the Civil Court, so far as it dismisses the Plaintiffs' suit with costs, be affirmed, and that this appeal be allowed with costs.]

—————————————————-