MANOHARLAL RAMESHWARDAS Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Click here to view full judgement.
K.L.PANDEY, J. -
(1.) THE plaintiff initiated an action claiming Rupees 10,100/ - as compensation for not being allowed to pluck and remove myrobalan from the forests of certain villages in the Baihar tahsil of Balaghat district. The lower Court accepted the claim in part and passed a decrete for Rs. 1,222/ -. The plaintiff has appealed against that part of the decree by which his claim was dismissed. The defendant has filed a cross -objection against the claim decreed by the lower Court. This judgment will govern the appeal as well as the cross -objection.
(2.) IT is no longer disputed that, by three unregistered documents, the plaintiff purported to acquire from the proprietors of certain villages for consideration the right to rear and pluck for some years myrobalan in their forests and to take away the myrobalan so obtainable. The details of those transactions are as given below: - -
Names of villages Name of proprietor Date of transaction. Years for which rights were created.
Sarad (Fazal and Duchand)
Samnapur Mahal I Parasram 4 -12 -1949 1949 -50
1950 -51 1951 -52
II. Roopjhar - -/5/4
Khursud - -/10/8 Dayaram 10 -10 -1950 1951 -52
Kinia Yadunathsao 29 -3 -1951 1951 -52
It is common ground that after the Madhya Pradesh Abolition of Proprietary Rights (Estates, Mahals, Alienated Lands) Act, 1950 (1 of 1951) came into force on 31st March, 1951, the villages referred to in Paragraph 2 above vested in the defendant, who thereafter had all myrobalan obtainable from the forests of those villages in 1951 -52 auctioned in favour of third persons. Thereupon the plaintiff served the usual notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure for compensation.
(3.) THE plaintiff claimed that the licenses which he had obtained from the proprietors of the aforementioned villages to take away myrobalan from their forests bound the defendant, in whom those villages subsequently vested by operation of law. However, the defendant did not permit the plaintiff to remove myrobalan from the forests in 1951 -52 and sold away the produce to other persons. According to the plaintiff, this wrongful act of the defendant entitled him to claim damages which he assessed at Rs. 10,100/ -.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.