, , I I.I 1/f! l/11 " II 'I l  

KULDIP MAHA TQN AND ORS.  1:wq11:Joo nt wl .1; ~ nr· 1.1q11 -rTi 1 --11 nom lf, 1 :tonll r n1l·1 ibli •;rlr  i; rll!W hi :.. I ~ ~I ,1 • II , " •lb !I ' c "i'>f r. 'lo  eno'(!IL , ~HULA?;J ~J:U.0 (D,EAD} BY L ... R$ ._6ND ORSI lfib1A1b!!i!  .. d blu< 'l;:1 i l r 1 f, I. "' 1 ' dr; rn liLj;J1 • 1 ~rn(J,iJr;:!  n-m:'lrll 1url r. m br.sJ2 n~·f0~¥BER, 30 JP~1bq ..,no 2£ li'.>flf!J'jb 1101111s12  blur.1 ~ " "' ; o 1 In, I£ ; .;r 'l-d11;: 11 1 " 11n'.I d.  Ifs ot linll}.-B~A~u\\'.~f'4.X·~ /rl ,1J!: Yf:rJ~!~J;:J~~A J,] 1-".) r:w10Jut.  

Hindu law-Inheritance  . n1 .:ir!J ~f' 'I <:Jibn..,d '.lrh  

'.I h vl2dl .ith I ,, 111 ur I 1:H I'• •;d i 0 ~ Jr,rlJ I  Wido"11· inheriti]lg•pfiopei;ty,cns life; est(Jt~ prior, !'11 tbe rlr/if!dU> }f_OJ11e'lf ~1  

Rigflt 10,Prqp<:rty ~gti"Ttffter heli d§g(h,Syc£~iori1t:lP~Ql{<I tgrriev,~r~io.neJi~-d  C J A{iPAffl'frfo_n Q1a~ifJ&Jifa~11J-=tt:Ap![e/la!.~ iGgµl(lt c/W~li.~in&h{s. yeos!f« rkijtn  

hqld thatrheacquir:ftd title lti>.th~ prope5t)!c/Jypr~~1Jipti.ontH~ldi'..Co-p;wnerp  carmp( plegc/ adver~e p'OS,Sfpsj,o!J ggqj!l§f·fJl'JO/}lef-9,<>rowner, ,il'!rlhe abs?110e1J  of,ftll1'..f/~§1/Jlea ana pj.oofroj fii!:,Uf~ l{tle:n-[Jivis~on, of rPl'f1P.BJty Q_l'jd,_l!)eshe b  pr,pjits,Diljeetions i.ss~ed l' itl.,q !l'.mi I ;.., b. I. ?' I~ ' fJ t !1 b· " r Iii.  

JlJOrlt: UO 1 f1  D ([ M inherited certain property from her husband Bas limited owner  

E  

F  

G  

H  

to ojoys the,,property for life. She died before the Hindu Women' s )  Right to Property Act, 1937 came into force. On her death, succession  to the said property opened to the reversioners i.e. the first respondent  and the appellants. They became co-owners of the property. The first  respondent claimed that he was adopted by M when he was young and  he was entitle to the possession of the property in his own right as the  adopted son of 8 , and that the appellants were not entitled to the  possession. The Trial Court decreed the suit in favour l>f th«: first  respondent, but the appellate court disbelieved the version. However it  also dismissed that suit on the finding that the first respondent had  acquired title to the property by prescription. The second appeal was  dismissed by the High Court. Hence this appeal.  

Allowing the appeal, this Court  

HELD : 1. It is not the case of the first respondent as found by the  appellate court, that after the succession to the reversioner was opened  on the demise of M, he ousted the appellant from possession of the  lands or he had set up his own hostile title to the knowledge of the  reversioners, namely, the appellants and they had acquiesced to that  exercise of the right. In the absence of such a pleading and proof,  necessa ry presumption is that all the co-owners continued to be owners  of the property and the first respondent remained in possession of the  

220

•221  

1 Jsp,j ~lRJlt:eqy, as hco-.mvner J!r.~ ~~ttlq~ -la)f, that 1<111~cQ-o~er cannot JA  bri?l~t~i'~ve~ .P.,JSf!SSiJ!U ag1Jjns.~1 a91qt~~r; c~o o~n,er 1µ~1,ess,rthtre.ris an  1i ~ifJ>fc~S~oRJ.~~ n,~ .P,~9pf1 J?fr h~~jlf 1 t~tlfr1 wert~~ I t9J ~!J!IJtf.e)Jlfii~etlirjn  ~,p,p~~ io~ ·~sser~ion<.A~}IA~t r~~~ to ~h§ •~n~.~l.edg~1of .t~J! ~FpelJ1tn~s.  

11 tfi~1ap e!JC f Slffi~ &JP~~~i~g apd.-f>r.o!Jf, ih,etfln!tiqg pf ~~oppellate  co~ljt ~b~ttbe ~r,st ~esp.gn,de~figad 11squ~rsdi ijle ti~L~(>J~tl pr:gpe~ by  

, 1p escr·ntion is,dearly,illega, . . jl2} ""tO:M], J 1 J , 51bilr' _, l .H ~11 5l $ r. r. .Jt.t 1;' ~ _n , ,J 'j jj \ i: t •  ti~ 1 1.1. ' 111 ~n n f ,. ) i 1 c ~·cl .... '1[ 1w., ~f J 1 .·n. n~ 11u i. bit!  

1. ne aJ!.l?tj a!lJs  1 c a med JWSsession as owners., They ha"e .title as  

1< ~'l 1 uHf" fi i fo r; 11,, .J ·d'e(l'~ih1;;il( 1 hn· , . mi,. "'''1 t."l · c, c.L• 1  /er<i~o10.~v'.)~h7 ~. ~m%J. ~~p~~I sf11nu1J HJ f,13,TC,,!tl0 J~~ .l;~~:tWt11 c~s~me  pro~el 1e_s bw I e toe llrSl re ponaent oaa balf.

1 sliare 1th~ p,ropertv. r. , 1 "'W'd t•iW 'f 1 I b. "'t ~ '11 J .:lfJ 01>l L J :_I ,; ~ • Gr'  

T~ceu~~o  71  

, th,,e () e~~'te ? t~! \" ~ "cou 1 app~ ate 1cq~J\i~~a t ~,High  CounJar d as1cre. ne suit must be re~tea o be one for l!artitiop. G:  

~ thertls&afrT be ft prelifui~J'r)J· deJre1: ih ohs 1.~a f (~hh mesJe ~rofits  ··)!L D~~ l<r i.,.~ .' I" ,> t r: 1:>2 . 1 . 11J I J 1t.:1·.,  

1 'I' :1 '1 for rnn:e ars· .,nor to u e o~ suit. The trial coun ~ a rected to draw  C\'t1erl fin1f1l ec ee2 oh an appfit..1ationt> t? 1be' m.t aae i~· til1s fbeha.1r i>'v .,,fhe  Gp~ellant rJnlt ehij h:1'into%dhf p~ofits shouia1 tie>~oh6duc 1<1:' 1 1' ~n  

!>CH n~ l!Ul !lrlJ b:..?.<:1m?10 bsrl fl Ji.Id .i:1311t ':J '1 ,_, tl..1(1 11q:. r22~1 1 O':BJ  .n(l1Jqmw1q {d '(Tt:>c )lCJ 511J 01 ~1111 b..r11 i-)t bn11 rn.lucH:.I t ,rl'l ~·11 111 <ID  bno· --3. Siif certhechegal R~r~intati-ves oT Respontl~lffifN~ 4 td161We  noOt\bt0ughtr-on1 tecOTd\ be a'ppeal(ra5)'agalnstJ t6enf 15tood ~i9tni$gtd.  Since they are purchasers from tbt:4ir5tl dtfefidifli~ rtbe prc:fpertyi'sold o  them stood now allotted to bis share ~nd must be computed to the share  

'(df)li;tlJ~~ fi~i>n deftb(ia'i\ . ii 1.Eq'~IJ)ll1!l(jf) 'ffle •1 rtfid'siw~1~1ut'o I other  :.id~Qlitdants11le'Sp'Ondentsl cRl ln'o lnrta1t11@1ip~ilaHfS.rl TlfJ ii'n~sl1si\d1to E  uthehl isliu ~desk St ~he rshat~l:or.>t'tte , fifsf1tes'p(}naiiJt 111beirf riftfl'08Urt  :sboul<t 1~<Jtlt.:.Out?tth r-ights b~ t' tfl>e .p.i'rc'.6'asers<T <tquita'f>r~ n amo«g  hemielY~cdetummei tb'eiP•lfld5ilitj~ tol tli~r'apperliiits ri'n 'llfawingJtbe  

-fmatndec~:iand{'illottfngtth~5propertits th coll'ft 1sh<fuld t'tftl(e1 hffo  oniideratimi ilo qua1ity llll~i ~ltlo~ f t tbt fpfopertyl r;Ar decree! for  

<!paymeafraf.l!COnrpensation2 t<J) tthe:iritppellarltsllbt:iinade 1Enqi:li~1 into R  rltie.tne<p1jofitstbemied~iandJiVfinall deb1ee1 sbM.1ld> be1 pa~edlia~cordittgry  5wjfhjru,g~~.eaciftdm)ththlateinf>making1th~iapplibanonl. '('22~.@ DP 1o  J!;rll e:I,f¥p2 l~~~Lt'A E'{!l,f!\nQ b ePi~ nri ~ 2~\ ' bm:~'1 ~~nor;:4r"1r  {j'"a~:>::ih1~foo- , 15 t':i 111 i; / riuN 1 !1 10 • ; :J .o W , 11\PP, f 'f ,. },f xq  !j(G 1) ll!lff'IO '•l Ol Uf"' ,;10.; ? 5 ,,, ;,i(i} I TJ 1 < I 11 ~ 1  -o 21iro)ll!Jthdudgmenf and &aeriaated•IJ.~7 6f.;fhefJlafiia High 'Coilit1ih 0  rS.~'Nm<b ll<O~ 1975 :) l '1f s .. 1!l!l ~ f)-OJ n) !Sill Ill. I D' hJ'll 21 JI r  I>!llq §2£1qY~ a.G 2i !i1' ril .1 Ilu;3 b!ll612 2L ,.22:>lnu 1:JOHO·OJ 1:irl!Ol J?.nit:g6  no h~lft'~a~~~JW'e ~r1°%~g.fuiWfib?neffil~~ i9f1fPS1~RH~\Wtl~ 1q bnn ·  n rbLB.81 Sin"gH'knd1rftP! Sirigliif6iQtlu?rR.e\'i>Orl'da\iS?ll>i !)1b oJ Jrl2h JsrlJ to  bt>I ns rl8 1£111 nu :i ~ltJll;,i• qs :iii! 1o ~Olb'.lit :lrl1 "too1q bns gnibs!>lq  

The f~I ~~jngprdrr ofrthe,S::O~l!IJJ'f~<l~j 'Xf~ ·11 oJ :iltil ~rl1 ti~uup:>s H

A  

B  

c  

D  

E  

F  

G  

H  

222 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1994] SUPP. 6 S.C.R  

One Upasi Mahto is the common ancestor. He had four sons, out of  them Mohit Mahto and Chaturi are his first and third sons. Fargudi and  Sukan pre-deceased him leaving no heirs. Therefore, the question of their  genealogy does not arise. Mohit Mahto had two sons, namely, Bigu and  Bihari, Bigu died. Bigu's wife is Smt. Munnia. Chaturi had two sons, Deni  Mahto and Raghubir. First defendant Bhulan is the son of Deni Mahto.  Raghubir's children are the plaintiffs/appellants before us. The appellants  laid a suit against the Bhulan and his alienees claiming title to and  possession of the suit property inherited by their father Raghubir Mahto or  in the alternative to get the land of Munnia on her demise as reversioners. It  is the case of Bhulan, the first defendant, that he was adopted by Munnia,  widow of Bigu when he was young and he was entitled to the possession of  the property in his own right as an adopted son of Bigu. Therefore, the  appellants are not entitled to the possession. Though the trial court decreed  the suit, the appellate court while disbelieving the version of the Bhulan  held that he was not the adopted son of Munnia and that the appellants  would get the property as reversioners. But it had dismissed the suit on the  finding that Bhulan had acquired title to the property by prescription.  Therefore, the appellants are not entitled to the possession. The second  Appeal No. 51175 was dismissed by the High Court of Patna in limine on  August 3, 1977. Thus this appeal by special leave.  

The undisputed facts that emerge from the findings and the genealogy  are that Munnia inherited the property of Bigu as limited owner to enjoy the  property for her life. Admittedly, she died in 1932 before the Hindu  Women's Right to Property Act, 1937 had come into force. On her demise,  succession to the property held by Bigu opened to the reversioners i.e. both  the respondent/1st defendant and the appellants. Thereby, they become co- owners of the property left by Munnia. It is not the case of Bhulan, as found  by the appellate court, that after the succession to the reversioner was  opened on the demise of Munnia, he ousted the appellant from possession  of the lands or he had set up his own hostile title to the knowledge of the  reversioners, namely, the appellants and they had acquiesced to that  exercise of the right. In the absence of such a pleading and proof, necessary  presumption is that all the co-owners continued to be owners of the  property and Bhulan remained in possession of the suit property as co- owner. It is settled law that one co-owner cannot plead adverse possession  against another co-owner unless, as stated earlier, there is an express plea  and proof of hostile title asserted to and remained in possession in assertion  of that right to the knowledge of the appellants. ln the absence of such a  pleading and proof, the finding of the appellate court tQ.at Bhutan had  acquired the title to the property by prescription is clearly illegal.

KULDIP MAHA TON v. BHULAN MAHTO 223  

Since the findings of adverse possession is not sustainable, what would A  be the relief that could be granted in the suit is the question. The appellants  claimed possession as owners. In view of the above finding, they have title  as reversioners of Bigu for undivided half share in the plaint schedule  properties while Bhulan had half share in the property. Therefore, the  decree of the trial court, appellate court and the High Court are set aside.  The suit must be treated to be one for partition. There shall be a preliminary B  decree in this t?ehalf with mesne profits for three years prior to date of suit.  The trial court is directed to draw the final decree on an application to be  made in this behalf by the appellants and enquiry iI1to mesne profits should  be conducted. During the pendency of this appeal, respondent Nos. 4 to 6  died. By an order of this Court dated February 11, 1991, since the Legal  Representatives of Respondent Nos. 4 to 6 were not brought on record, the C  appeal as against them stood dismissed. Since they are purchasers from the  first defendant, the property sold to them stood now allotted to his share  and must be computed to the share of the first defendant. EquaJly of the  lands sold to other defendants/respondents do not bind the appellants. The  lands sold to them is in excess of the share of Bhulan. The Trial Court  should work-out the rights of the purchasers equitably among themselves, D  determine their liabilities to the appellants. ln drawing the final decree and  allotting the properties, the court should take into consideration of quality  and value of the property. A decree for payment of compensation to the  appellants be made. Enquiry into mesne profits be made and a final decree  should be passed accordingly within one year from the date of making the  application. The appeal is accordingly allowed. Parties are directed to bear E  their own respective costs through out.  

G.N. Appeal allowed.