1. Section 377 of the Bihar and Orissa Municipal Act, 1922, mandates a one-month notice for suits against Municipal Commissioners for acts done under the Act. However, this provision protects the Municipality against suits for damages for tortuous acts. It is not attracted to suits seeking declaration of title and permanent injunction, unless the suit specifically challenges an act done under the Act warranting damages. If the Municipality contests the suit on merits without raising the notice objection, the requirement is waived.
2. A registered sale deed executed between the parents and their two grandsons (sons of a pre-deceased son) on the ground of love and affection for the purpose of protecting the rights of the grandsons (Mehjoob children) does not amount to a 'sale' under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, which requires payment of money. Such a deed is valid and effectual to transfer title, excluding the rights of the other sons of the transferor who were present as witnesses.
3. In a suit for declaration of title, the plaintiff must prove his title independently. The burden shifts to the defendant once the plaintiff creates a high degree of probability. The Court below correctly held that the plaintiff could not establish title over the entire 1.98 acres because the 1 acre had validly been transferred to the intervener/defendant via the aforesaid deed.
4. Land recorded in the C.S. khatian as 'Gairmazarua Aam Pokhar' does not permanently vest in the State or Municipality forever. The nature of land may change with the passage of time, and ex-landlords can settle such land. A registered sale deed executed prior to 1946 in favor of a raiyat, subsequently recognized in revenue records as raiyati land, cannot be deemed forged merely because of a generic revenue entry.
Held: The Second Appeals are dismissed. The judgment of the Appellate Courts affirming the plaintiff's title only over 98 decimals is set aside in their favor, and the plaintiffs are declared owners of that portion only.
