- (1.) THIS is an appeal against an appellate order of the Additional Commissioner, Raipur, dated 14.4.1954 confirming the decree of the trial court whereby the appellant's suit for recovery of possession was dismissed by virtue of sec. 4 of the Rajasthan (Protection of Tenants) Ordinance, 1949.
(2.) THE respondent did not put in appearance despite notice and hence the case was heard ex parte. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has frankly conceded before us that the judgment of the lower court is correct, as far as it goes. His apprehension, however is that the denial by the respondent of the appellant's title as khatedar tenants might adversely affect his interests and hence the suit may be allowed to continue for that purpose. The following observations made by their Lordship of Privy Council in A. I. R. 1923 P.C. 118, provide the answer to the point at issue : "The simple assertion of proprietary right in a judicial proceeding connected with the land in dispute which ex hypothesis was unfounded at the date when it was made, cannot by the mere laps of 6 or 12 years, convert what was an occupancy or tenant title into that of an under proprietor. Where each party had his supposed rights judicially challenged by the other, the plaintiff by the notice of ejectment, of which he had obtained cancellation, the defendant by the assertion in the proceedings for cancellation of the notice for ejectment that he was not liable to be ejected because at his rights as under-proprietor. Held, it is not the duty of either party to institute such a suit if they were content that possession should remain on the same footing as before the notice of ejectment was served. It is not correct as a general proposition of law that a person who is, in fact, in possession of land under a tenancy or occupancy title can by a mere assertion in a judicial proceeding and a lapse of 6 or 12 years without that assertion having been successfully challenged, obtain a title as an under-proprietor to the lands. Such a judgment might have very far reaching results and would almost certainly lead to a flood of litigation. It is notorious that in actions for rent or enhancement of rent or for ejectment the persons in possession are prone to maintain rights which they do not possess, and if for any reasons no judicial determination is arrived at but the parties continue on the original footing, if the above principle were sound, the mere lapse of so short a period as six or twelve years which might be amply explained upon other grounds will deprive landlord of his proprietory rights unless in the mean time he had brought a declaratory suit to settle once and for all the terms upon which the possession was held." This proposition of law enunciated above should set at rest all the doubts of the appellant. The appeal is hereby rejected.;