ဆန့်ကျင်လက်ရှိထားခြင်းကိစ္စသိ၊မသိသည်အဓိကအကြောင်းတရပ်ဖြစ်ပါသလော ?

 ဆရာကြီးဦးမြသင်ကြားပို့ချချက်များ

ဆန့်ကျင်လက်ရှိထားခြင်းကိစ္စသိ၊မသိသည်အဓိကအကြောင်းတရပ်ဖြစ်ပါသလော ?

——————————————

ကာလစည်းကမ်းသတ်ဆိုင်ရာဥပဒေပြဿနာကိုဆုံးဖြတ်ရာတွင်၊တရားမျှတမှုပြဿနာမပေါ်ပေါက်။

ကာလစည်းကမ်းသတ်ဥပဒေကိုယ်တိုင်သည်ပင်လျင်၊တရားမျှတမှုရှိသောဥပဒေဟုပြောဆိုရန်ခက်ခဲလှသည်။

အမှုအမျိုးမျိုးအတွက်၊စည်းကမ်းသတ်အမျိုးမျိုးကိုသင့်တော်မည်၊ကောင်းမည်ထင်သလိုသတ်မှတ်ထားသည်ကိုတွေ့မြင်နိုင်သည်။

လက်တွေ့လိုအပ်ချက်အရစည်းကမ်းသတ်ကာလကိုသတ်မှတ်ရခြင်းဖြစ်သည်။

တရားမျှတမှုနှင့်တိုက်ရိုက်သက်ဆိုင်ခြင်းမရှိ။

—————————-

A. I. R. 1937 Rangoon 180

MYA BU AND BAGULEY, JJ.

Munshi Bashir Ahmad — Appellant.

                  V.

Nederlandsche Handel Maatschappij - Respondent.

Letters Patent Appeal No. 5 of 1936, Decided on 17th August 1936, from decree of High Court, D/- 25th March 1936.

အမှုနှင့်

1961 BLR ( H C ) 111 ( 118 )

APPELLATE CIVIL.

Before U San Maung and U Mya Thein, JJ.

U AUNG THA (deceased) BY HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES MA SEIN MYA AND FIVE OTHERS (APPELLANTS)

                             V.

KO TUN KHAING AND FIVE OTHERS (RESPONDENTS).

1961. Mar. 13.

အမှုတို့တွင်ဆန့်ကျင်လက်ရှိထားခြင်းကိစ္စသိမသိသည်၊အဓိကမဟုတ်ကြောင်း၊အထက်ပါစီရင်ထုံးနှစ်ရပ်အရအတည်တကျဖြစ်လျက်ရှိသောဥပဒေသဖြစ်သည်။

သိခြင်း၊မသိခြင်းထက်၊လူမြင်သူမြင်ဟုတ်ခြင်း၊မဟုတ်ခြင်းကပို၍အရေးကြီးသည်။

————————————-

A. I. R. 1937 Rangoon 180

MYA BU AND BAGULEY, JJ.

Munshi Bashir Ahmad — Appellant.

                  V.

Nederlandsche Handel Maatschappij - Respondent.

Letters Patent Appeal No. 5 of 1936, Decided on 17th August 1936, from decree of High Court, D/- 25th March 1936.

အမှုတွင်ဆန့်ကျင်လက်ရှိထားမှုသည်အကျိုးသက်ရောက်မှုရှိစေရန်ထိုသို့ထားရှိကြောင်းပိုင်ရှင်သိအောင်ပြုဖို့မလို၊ပိုင်ရှင်အနေဖြင့်အလေးဂရုပြုပါကဖြစ်ပျက်နေသည့်ကိစ္စကိုသိရှိနိုင်လောက်အောင်လက်ရှိထားမှုသည်ပွင့်လင်းပြီးဖုံးကွယ်ရန်အားထုတ်ခြင်းမပြုလျင်လုံလောက်ကြောင်းအောက်ပါအတိုင်းထုံးဖွဲ့သည်-

[ Adverse Possession - Essentials of- Fact of adverse possession need not be brought to knowledge of person against whom it is to operate-Possession must be overt and without concealment. 

The fact of adverse possession in order to be effective need not be brought to the knowledge person against whom it is to operate. It is sufficient that such possession is overt and without any attempt at concealment, so that the person against whom time is running ought, if he exercise due diligence, to be aware of what is happening: 63 Cal 300 and A I R 1934 P C 23, Rel. on. ]

——————————————

1961 BLR ( H C ) 111 ( 118 )

APPELLATE CIVIL.

Before U San Maung and U Mya Thein, JJ.

U AUNG THA (deceased) BY HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES MA SEIN MYA AND FIVE OTHERS (APPELLANTS)

                             V.

KO TUN KHAING AND FIVE OTHERS (RESPONDENTS).

1961. Mar. 13.

အမှုတွင်တရားဝန်ကြီးဦးစံမောင်ကအောက်ပါအတိုင်းထုံးဖွဲ့ထားသည်-

[ The characteristics of adverse possession are that the possession required must be adequate in continuity in publicity and in extent to show that it is adverse to the competitor and that it is not necessary that the adverse possession should be brought to the knowledge of the person against whom it is claimed, but is sufficient if the possession is overt and without any attempt at concealment, so the person against whom time is running out, if he exercised due vigilance, to be aware of what is happening.

Maharaja Srischandra Nandy and others v. Baijnath Jugal Kishore, A.I.R.(1935) P.C. 36 : followed. ]

စီရင်ထုံးစာမျက်နှာ-၁၁၇နှင့်၁၁၈၌၊တရားဝန်ကြီးဦးစံမောင်ကအောက်ပါအတိုင်းသုံးသပ်ဆုံးဖြတ်သည်-

[ Now, it is an established fact that when the Chettyar sold the suit land to the defendants Ko Tun Khaing and Ma Thon by a registered deed of sale dated the 9th of May 1931, he acted as if the suit land was his own property. 

One of the facts admitted by U San Yi (P.W 7)ex-Headman of Yegyo who was cited by the plaintiff himself, before the sale of the land to Ko Tun Khaing and Ma Thon, that Chettyar had let it out to Ko Thet Wai and Ma Ohn Khin. 

Therefore, it is clear that after the purchase of the land at the auction sale, the Chettyar was treating the land as his own property. 

After the purchase of the land from the Chettyar the defendants Ko Tun Khaing and Ma Thon were also treating the land as their own property.

Even if the plaintiff and his family did not know about the sale of the land by the Chettyar to Ko Tun Khaing and Ma Thon in 1931, it is obvious that on their return to Yegyo Village from Lower Burma, they must have known about the transaction. 

It is an admitted fact that the plaintift and his family arrived back at Yegyo two or three years before the Japanese invasion of Burma. 

That was clearly more than i2 years before the date of the suit which was filed on the 15th of October 1952.

Regarding the characteristics of adverse possession, the Privy Council had in the case of Maharaja Srischandra Nandy and others v. Baijnath Jugal Kishore (I) A.I.R 1935. P. C. 36. held that the possession required must be adequate in continuity, in publicity and in extent to show that it is adverse to the competitor and that it is not necessary that the adverse possession should be brought to the knowledge of the person against whom it is claimed, but, is sufficient if the possession is overt and without any attempt at concealment, so that the person against whom time is running ought, if he exercised due vigilance to be aware of what is happening.

In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the defendants Ko Tun Khaing and Ma Thon's possession of the suit land became adverse to the plaintiffs since the year 193I.

For these reasons, we consider that the plaintiffs' suit was barred under Article 144 of the Limitation Act. 

In the result the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs. ]

——————————-

1961 BLR ( H C ) 111 စီရင်ထုံး၌၊တရားဝန်ကြီးဦးစံမောင်လိုက်နာဆုံးဖြတ်သောပရီဗီကောင်စီ၏စီရင်ထုံးအား၊အင်တာနက်မှရှာဖွေရရှိသဖြင့်စာဖတ်သူဥပဒေပညာရှင်များလေ့လာနိုင်ရန်အလို့ငှါအောက်တွင်ဆက်လက်ဖော်ပြလိုက်ပါသည်-

Privy Council Appeal No. 5 of 1934.

Patna Appeals No. 26 of 1931 and No. 12 of 1933.

 

Maharaja Srischandra Nandy and others -Appellants

                           V.

Baijnath Jugal Kishore (a firm) -Respondents

————————————-

Baijnath Jugal Kishore (a firm) - Appellants

                           V.

Maharaja Srischandra Nandy and others - Respondents

(Consolidated Appeals)

FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA.

———————————————

JUDGMENT OF THE LORDS OF THE JUDICIAL COMMITTEE OF THE PRIVY COUNCIL, DELIVERED THE 14TH DECEMBER, 1934.

———————————————

Present at the Hearing :

LORD BLANESBURGH.

LORD THANKERTON.

SIR LANCELOT SANDERSON.

[Delivered by LORD THANKERTON.]

—————————————————

A. I. R. ( 1935 ) P. C. 36.

Srischandra Nandy 

              vs 

Baijnath Jugal Kishore 

on 14 December, 1934.

Equivalent citations: (1935) 37 BOMLR 323, A.I.R. ( 1935 ) P.C. 36.

JUDGMENT

Thankerton, J.

ပရီဗီကောင်စီ၏စီရင်ထုံး၌အောက်ပါအတိုင်းမြွက်ဆိုသည်-

[ 10. As regards the defendants' main contention, the principle of law as to what is necessary to constitute adverse possession is well settled, though its application in the circumstances of particular cases may present some difficulty; this, perhaps, is more likely to occur in cases of the alleged adverse possession of under-ground mineral seams. The principle has recently been re-stated by this Board in Secretary of State for India v. Debendra Lal Khan (1933) L.R. 61 I.A. 78, s.c. 36 Bom. L.R. 249 as follows (p. 82) :-

As to what constitutes adverse possession, a subject which formed the topic of some discussion in the case, their Lordships adopt the language of Lord Robertson In delivering the judgment of the Board in Radhamoni Debi v. Collector of Kh(sic) (1900) L.R. 27 I.A. 136, 140, s.c. 2 Bom. L.R. 592 at p. 140 where his Lordship said that 'the possession required must be adequate in continuity, in publicity and in extent to show that it is possession adverse to the competitor.' The classical requirement is that the possession should be nee vi nee clam nee precario. Mr. Dunne for the Crown appeared to desiderate that the adverse possession should be shown to have been brought to the knowledge of the Crown, but in their Lordships' opinion there is no authority for this requirement. It is sufficient that the possession should be overt and without any attempt at concealment, so that the person against whom time is running ought, if he exercises due vigilance, to be aware of what is happening.

11. In their Lordships' opinion, the defendants have failed to show that the plaintiffs predecessors, by exercising due vigilance, ought to have been aware of what was happening, apart from the question of whether the possession was adequate in continuity and extent.]

—————————————————-