The Supreme Court has upheld the ownership of the "paigah land" of Hydernagar by the heirs of ryot farmers, affirming the judgment of the Telangana High Court.
Justice V. Ramasubramanian and Justice Pankaj Mittal rejected the title claim made by rival claimants, including M/s Trinity Infraventures Ltd., stating that the land was the matrimonial property of the late Nawab Khurshid Jah, gifted to him by the Nizam of Hyderabad.
Brief Facts:
In 2019, the Telangana High Court's division bench ruled against the appellants, finding that they failed to establish the land in Haidernagar village as the matrilineal property of Khurshid Jah Paigah, under whom they claimed ownership based on a preliminary decree passed by the Hyderabad High Court in 1963. The court determined that the land in Haidernagar village was jagir land, which had been leased to ryots for cultivation prior to 1948. Consequently, the court held that ownership of the land had already been transferred to the cultivating ryots, who subsequently passed it on to their heirs, known as the "claim petitioners/defendants."
The High Court observed that the land did not come under the control of the State Government after the enactment of the Hyderabad Jagir Abolition Regulation in 1358 Fasli. Therefore, the claim petitioners acquired absolute possession through adverse possession.
Observations by the Court:
Addressing an appeal against the division bench's judgment, the Supreme Court declared that the appellants' claim of the property being matrilineal and inherited by the legal heirs had failed. Thus, the execution of a decree based on the property's matrilineal status was deemed unnecessary.
The Supreme Court further stated that findings on property title recorded in a simple partition suit could not bind third parties. Although the 1963 preliminary decree could not be affected by fraud, it was not binding on third parties such as the Government and the claim petitioners, who established their claim independently under the provisions of the Jagir Abolition Regulations.
Additionally, the Supreme Court noted that the High Court concluded that the preliminary decree was fraudulently obtained due to certain circumstances. It highlighted the conversion of a partition suit into a suit for title and the passing of numerous final decrees based on a compromise between some of the parties, which indicated an abuse of the legal process.
The court emphasized that no party to a partition suit could acquire title to a specific property or portion of a property, even through an agreement, if the contract was entered into only with some of the parties involved.
Case Title: M/s Trinity Infraventures Ltd. & Ors. Etc. Vs. M.S. Murthy & Ors. Etc., 2023 Latest Caselaw 530 SC
Coram: Justices V. Ramasubramanian and Pankaj Mithal
Citation: 2023 Latest Caselaw 530 SC
Advocates of the Petitioners: Shri B. Adinarayana Rao, Shri Chander Uday Singh, Shri Ranjit Kumar, learned senior counsel and Shri Santosh Krishnan
Advocates of the Respondent: Shri C.S. Vaidyanathan, learned senior counsel appearing for the State of Telangana and Shri V.V.S. Rao, Shri Hemendranath Reddy and Shri K.S. Murthy, learned senior counsel appearing for third parties and Shri Dushyant Dave, learned senior counsel appearing for an Asset Reconstruction Company
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
