JANATHA DAL PARTY Vs THE INDIAN NATIONAL CONGRESS
Bench: K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN,VIKRAMAJIT SEN
Case number: SLP(C) No.-038991-038991 / 2013
Diary number: 39181 / 2013
Advocates: CHANDRA BHUSHAN PRASAD Vs
Page 1
1
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 38991 OF 2013
Janatha Dal Party … Petitioner
Versus
The Indian National Congress & Others … Respondents
J U D G M E N T
K. S. Radhakrishnan, J.
1. We are, in this case, concerned with the ownership
and possession of Premises No. 3, Race Course Road,
Bangalore, ‘A’ scheduled property, wherein, at present,
the political party Office of Janata Dal (Secular) is situated.
The suit property originally belonged to one Sri C.
Rangaswamy, who was the resident of Property No. 54,
Hospital Road, Baleput, Bangalore City, executed a
registered Gift Deed dated 22.4.1949 in favour of
Page 2
2
Bangalore City Congress Committee which was having its
office at No. 142, Cottonpet, Bangalore City, which
measured 5330 sq. yards. The land was donated by the
donor for the purpose of construction of Congress House,
wherein the All India Congress Party constructed a
building, by name, ‘Congress Bhavan’, in a portion of the
suit property. In the year 1969, there was split within the
Indian National Congress giving rise to two groups, one led
by late Smt. Indira Gandhi, under the Presidentship of late
Sri Jagajivan Ram and the other group led by late Sri S.
Nijalingappa. The group led by Jagajivan Ram was then
called the ‘Indian National Congress (J)’, whereas the other
group led by Nijalingappa was called as ‘Indian National
Congress (O)’. The split in the party at the centre had its
own effect in the State of Karnataka as well. The then
Mysore Pradesh Congress Party broke up into Congress (J)
and Congress (O) corresponding to those groups in the All
Indian Congress Committee at the Centre. Each group
claimed itself to be the real Indian National Congress. That
Page 3
3
dispute came up before the Election Commission of India
(ECI).
2. The ECI, applying the test of majority at the
organizational level and the legislative wings, by its order
11.1.1971 held that the Congress (J) was the Indian
National Congress. The decision of the ECI was
upheld by this Court in Shri Sadiq Ali and another v.
The Election Commission of India, New Delhi and
others (1972) 4 SCC 664. Consequently, Congress (J)
group, formed as the Indian National Congress, came to
be recognized as the Indian National Congress for all
purposes.
3. The General Elections to the Lok Sabha were held in
the year 1977. The opposition parties consisting of
Congress (O) Group - led by Nijalingappa, Lok Dal headed
by late Sri Charan Singh, Jana Sangha – led by Sri A.B.
Vajapayee and Congress for Democracy - led by Sri
Jagjivan Ram, fought elections together as one front under
the name of Janata Party. Congress was defeated in that
Page 4
4
election. Janata Party formed the Government at the
Centre, but did not last long. In the year 1978, there was
a further split within the Congress. National Convention of
the Congress was held at New Delhi on 1.1.1978 and
2.1.1978, in which members of the All India Congress
Committee, Members of Parliament, members of the State
Legislatures and Congress candidates participated and
they unanimously elected Smt. Indira Gandhi as the
President, though Sri K. Brahmananda Reddy was also in
the fray. ECI was called upon to examine that dispute as
well. Later, Sri D. Devaraj Urs succeeded Sri
Brahmananda Reddy as the President of that group, which
came to be known as Congress (U). However, Indira
Gandhi continued to be the leader of the main body which
was identified as the Congress (I). The Election
Commission allotted separate symbols to the Congress (U)
and (I) groups. The election to the Lok Sabha took place
in December 1979 and Congress (I) was voted back to the
Lok Sabha.
Page 5
5
4. The Election Commission, in the meantime, resolved
the dispute pending before it and recognized Indira
Gandhi as the President of the Party, known by the name
of Congress (I). It was also held that the group led by D.
Devaraj Urs, known by the name of Congress (U), was not
the Congress, leaving liberty to that group to approach the
Commission for its recognition as a party, taking a
different name for itself. D. Devaraj Urs, purporting to be
the President of Congress (U), filed a petition for special
leave to appeal to this Court against the order of the ECI
dated 23.7.1981. This Court, after issuing notices to all
the parties and hearing counsel on either side, dismissed
the Special Leave Petition on 14.8.1981.
5. We have narrated the above facts to indicate that the
suit property, all other properties and funds belonging to
or referred to as belonging to the Congress are thus the
properties and funds of the 1st Plaintiff herein. Similarly,
all properties and funds belonging to or referred to as
belonging to the erstwhile Mysore Pradesh Congress
Committee or the KPCC thus belong to the 2nd Plaintiff
Page 6
6
herein. The ‘A’ Schedule property is owned by 2nd and 1st
plaintiffs herein. The land comprised therein was
acquired by the erstwhile Mysore Pradesh Congress
Committee, as it was then called, and it constructed the
buildings standing in the suit property, which was earlier
known as Congress Bhavan.
6. We have already indicated that Janata Party came
into possession of the schedule property in question in the
year 1977. During the period, the above mentioned
property was under the control of Congress (O) group.
Two lease deeds were executed in respect of two portions
of the vacant land, vide lease deeds dated 22.1.1971 and
10.4.1971, in favour of 3rd respondent. After the Janata
Party came in possession in the year 1977, the previous
Janata Party, a unit of 1st defendant, granted lease of a
portion of the plaint ‘A’, schedule property in favour of 4 th
defendant on 04.08.1981, of which defendants 5 to 8 are
partners, the portion leased is described in the plaint ‘C’
schedule. The Janata Party or the previous Janata Party
had no right, title or interest for granting lease of the
Page 7
7
plaint ‘C’. Defendants 9-12 are stated to be the tenants
in portions of the building constructed in ‘A’ schedule
property, having taken the same on lease from the 1st
defendant.
7. We have indicated that the plaintiffs instituted the
present suit seeking a declaration of their title and for
possession of the suit property and also sought to recover
Rs.36,000/- towards past mesne profits. Defendant 1
and 2 filed their written statements on 10.11.1983
contesting the suit, but the factual details were not
disputed as such. But, it was pleaded that the decision
taken by the ECI or the judgment of this Court in Sadiq
Ali (supra) would not confer any title, ownership or
possession of the suit property on the plaintiffs. According
to the defendants, throughout, the above mentioned
property was in the possession of Congress (O), and after
its merger, it was in the possession of Janata Party and, at
no point of time, the plaintiffs were in possession.
Further, it was also pleaded that the suit itself was
barred by the law of limitation. Defendants 4 to 6 filed a
Page 8
8
written statement on 31.7.1984 disputing the plaintiffs’
right to bring the suit on behalf of Indian National
Congress. They pleaded that the Congress (O) continued
to be in possession as the absolute owner of the suit
property. Further, it is also stated that Congress (O) and
some other political parties joined together and
constituted Janata Party and Congress (O) was one of the
constituents of Janata Party, and the property in question
became the property of Janata Party and, since 1977,
Janata Party has been enjoying the suit property and they
were having their rights to lease out the property to other
contesting defendants.
8. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the trial
Court framed 24 issues. On behalf of the plaintiffs, 5
witnesses were examined and 17 documents were
exhibited. On behalf of defendants, 2 witnesses were
examined and 18 documents were exhibited. The trial
Court, after examining the rival contentions, and, on facts,
came to the conclusion that Congress (O), which was led
by Nijalingappa, lost its identity as Indian National
Page 9
9
Congress by virtue of the decision of the Election
Commission and as pointed out by this Court in Sadiq Ali
case. The trial Court also held that this Court recognized
the group led by Jagjivan Ram and Indira Gandhi as the
Indian National Congress. Consequently, the properties
and funds of Indian National Congress, before its split in
1969, would be of Congress (J) lead by Jagjivan Ram and
Indira Gandhi and it would not be the property of the
dissident group which was identified as Congress (O). On
facts, it was noticed that Congress (O) was subsequently
merged with Janata Party and, on account of said merger,
Janata Party would not acquire ownership of the suit
schedule property. It was held that since Janata Party was
not the owner of the suit property, it had no right to grant
lease in favour of 4th defendant and grant of such lease by
Janata Party would not bind the plaintiffs. Similarly, it was
also held that the grant of lease in ‘C’ schedule property in
favour of 3rd defendant by the President of Mysore Pradesh
Congress Committee, a unit of Congress (O) party, was
illegal and was not preceded by approval or permission of
Page 10
10
Indian National Congress. The trial Court also rejected
the plea of adverse possession and limitation and held
that the plaintiffs have succeeded in establishing their title
over the properties in question and, consequently, held
that the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of possession and
also mesne profits. Aggrieved by the same, Janata Party
filed RFA No. 2011 of 2005 which was heard by a Division
Bench of the High Court. The High Court concurred with
the findings recorded by the trial Court and dismissed the
appeal by its judgment dated 11.10.2013, against which
this SLP has been preferred.
9. Shri Gopal Subramanium, learned senior counsel
appearing for the petitioner, reiterated all the factual
contentions raised before the trial Court as well as the
High Court based on the basis of the written statements
filed by the contesting respondents and submitted that
neither the decision of the ECI nor the judgment of this
Court in Sadiq Ali (supra), would confer any title or
possession on the plaintiffs over the suit property.
Learned senior counsel submitted that the plaintiff could
Page 11
11
succeed in establishing their title and possession only on
the basis of independent documents and not on the basis
of the decision of the ECI or the judgment of this Court in
Sadiq Ali. Learned senior counsel also submitted that
the High Court has erred in noticing that Article 65 of the
Limitation Act, 1963, specifies that the limitation for
possession of immovable property or any interest therein
based on title is 12 years and the time from which the
period begins to run is when the possession of the
defendant became adverse to the plaintiff. Learned senior
counsel pointed out that, in the instant case, possession of
the defendant and their predecessor in title became
adverse to that of the plaintiff more than 12 years prior to
the filing of the suit and, therefore, the suit was liable to
be dismissed solely on the ground of limitation.
10. We have heard the arguments at length and have
also gone through the pleadings of the parties as well as
the judgments of the Courts below. We find it difficult to
accept the contention raised by the learned senior counsel
that the decision of the ECI dated 11.1.1971 or the
Page 12
12
judgment of this Court in Sadiq Ali (supra) would have
no bearing, so far as the facts of this case are concerned.
The question as to which of the two groups, Congress (J)
or Congress (O) (the then Congress Party) should be
recognized as the Congress, as already indicated, came
before the ECI. ECI, after applying the test of majority at
the organizational level and the legislative wings, took the
view that Congress (J) group of Congress came to be
recognized as the Congress for all purposes. The order of
ECI and this Court clearly indicate that the Congress then
led by Indira Gandhi had established rights on the
properties in question. The Courts below have narrated in
detail how the suit property came into the hands of the
plaintiffs and how the Congress (O) followed by Janata
Party ceased to have any right over the suit property in
question. Since, on facts, it was found that the
defendants have no right over the property in question,
the various lease deeds executed by them also cannot
stand in the eye of law.
Page 13
13
11. We have noticed that the property in question was
gifted vide registered gift deed dated 22.4.1949 by
Rangaswamy in favour of Bangalore City Congress
Committee. Plaintiffs could successfully trace their title
and interest over the suit property towards that gift deed
executed in the year 1949, coupled with the various
declarations by the ECI recognizing the petitioner as the
real Congress and the Judgment of this Court affirming the
same.
12. We are also not impressed by the arguments raised
by the learned senior counsel on the plea of limitation.
So far as Janata Party is concerned, it came into picture
only in the year 1977. On facts, it is clearly found that
Congress (O) had no right in the suit property. In the
instant case, Janata Dal (Secular) was impleaded as
defendant only on 14.10.2003 and the disputed property
was known as the Congress Bhavan till the formation of
Janta Dal in the year 1977. It is relevant to note that the
defendants had never accepted plaintiffs as the owner of
the property. On the contrary, their specific case was that
Page 14
14
the 1st defendant was the owner of the property. On
facts, it was found that the 1st defendant had no title over
the property in question. Further, the entire burden of
proving that the possession is adverse to that of the
plaintiffs, is on the defendant. On the other hand, the
possession of the suit property was throughout of
Congress (O) and its successor parties and not that of the
petitioner herein. It was after the split in Janata Party and,
subsequently before the filing of the suit, Janata Dal
continued to be in possession of the suit property. The
plea of limitation and adverse possession was elaborately
considered by the Courts below and we find no error in the
findings recorded by the Courts below on that ground as
well. Further, no substantive question of law arises for
our consideration. The SLP, therefore, lacks merits and is
dismissed.
13. Considering the facts that the petitioner is in
possession of the property for a considerable long period,
we are inclined to grant time up to 31.12.2014 to vacate
the premises, for which the petitioner has to prefer an
Page 15
15
undertaking before this Court within one month from
today stating that the petitioner would vacate the
premises within the stipulated time and that the petitioner
would pay the entire arrears of rent within a period of
three months and will continue to pay the rent without any
default. If the petitioner commits two consecutive
defaults in payment of monthly rent or fails to file the
undertaking, the time granted by this Court would not be
available and it will be open to the respondents to get the
judgment/decree executed.
………………………….J. (K. S. Radhakrishnan)
………………………….J. (Vikramajit Sen)
New Delhi, January 21, 2014.