Baktawar Singh vs Bheru Singh

A.H. Khan, J.—The Plaintiff brought a suit for declaration that he has become a Pakka tenant of the agricultural land in dispute and that the Defendant be restrained by means of injunction from interfering with his possession. It was stated i the plaint that during the pendency of the sun(sic) in revenue Courts between the parties, regarding the mutation of names, a receiver was appointed and be gave a Patta to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff''s contention is that after being let into possession by the receiver as a tenant, he acquired the rights of a Pakka tenant and that although the mutation proceedings have ended in favour of the Defendant, yet on the basis of the Patta given by the receiver, be has become a Pakka tenant.

The trial Court dismissed the Plaintiff''s suit and this decision was affirmed in appeal also. Now this is Plaintiff''s second appeal.

The short question to be deciled(sic) in this case is whether on the basis of Patta given by the receiver to the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff has become a Pakka tenant.

Section 38 of the M.B. Zamindari Abolition Act deals with the conferring of Pakka tenancy rights to tenants. Clause I of Section 38 runs thus:

Subject to the provisions of this section, every tenant of a proprietor shall be deemed to be a Pakka tenant of the land comprised in his holding from the date of vesting.

It is admitted that Patta in dispute was given by the Receiver during the pendency of the legal proceedings. Now by no stretch of imagination can the Receiver be considered to be the proprietor of the land in dispute. The general rule is that a person cannot by transfer or otherwise confer a better title on another than he himself has. The statutory requirement for being a Pakka tenant is that the Patta should be from the proprietor. It follows that where it is not so, no statutory rights are acquired The Receiver not being a proprietor could not lease the property in the same way as a Proprietor. The receiver granted a right to cultivate the land, which in the absence of such right would have been unlawful for anyone to cultivate. The Receiver gave the land to the Plaintiff by way which is akin to a license.

Mr. Shejwalkar, learned Counsel for the Appellant argues that a receiver is ''more than an agent'' and therefore a Patta given by him must be deemed to be given by the proprietor. I frankly confess that I am unable to appreciate the significance of the words "more than an agent". It is perhaps a good phrase but in the context of things, it is too vague to make the meaning clear. I am afraid a receiver cannot be deemed to be a proprietor.

The ground No. 2 of the memo of appeal is a good example of rigmarole. It makes confusion worse confounded. The only thing which I am able to understand from its last line is that the Plaintiff contends that he cannot be ejected. But there is no question of any ejectment involved in the case and the plea is futile,

For reasons stated above the appeal is dismissed with costs.