SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2017 Supreme(SC) 1164

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Madan B. Lokur, Deepak Gupta, JJ.
Aftaruddin (Dead) Rep. Thr. Lrs. – Appellants
Versus
Ramkrishna Datta alias Babul Datta & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 9040 of 2013
Decided On : 08-12-2017

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants :- Madhu Moolchandani, Adv.
For the Respondents:- Rajiv Mehta, Adv.

IMPORTANT POINTS
Any purported sale deed by under-raiyat is non-est under section 108 of TLR&LR Act.
Concurrent findings of courts below cannot be set aside in second appeal, that too without any substantial question of law.

Headnote:(a) Tripura Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act, 1960 – Section 108 – Prohibiting eviction of under-raiyat – Also prohibiting under-raiyat from transferring his interest – Daughter of the raiyat claiming sale deed by the under-raiyat in her favour and on that ground selling the land to appellants herein – Fraud by the raiyat and his daughter committed to circumvent section 108 – Moreover sale deed to appellants not executed by the under-raiyat – No relief could be granted to appellants against the under-raiyat – At best appellants could have their remedy against their vendor who were not even impleaded in the suit. (Para 6, 7)

       (b) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Section 100 – High Court allowing second appeal setting aside concurrent findings of the courts below – Without any question of law much less a substantial question of law – Not permissible. (Para 8)

       Facts of the case:

       One Sayed Jama Kazi was the raiyat (owner) of the suit land. Aftaruddin was under-raiyat (Kurfa rights similar to tenancy rights). On 11.01.71, Aftaruddin is alleged to have executed a sale deed transferring the entire suit land in favour of Mamataj Begam, daughter of the raiyat Sayed Jama Kazi. Thereafter, Mamataj Begam and Sayed Jama Kazi transferred the suit land to plaintiffs 1 and 2 by registered sale deed on 27.11.71. On 06.04.81 plaintiff no.2 sold and transferred a portion of his land to plaintiff no.3. In the Revenue Record the defendant Aftaruddin was shown to be in possession of the suit land. Therefore, the plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration of their title and prayed for injunction that defendant no.1 be restrained from interfering in the suit land.

       The trial court dismissed the suit. The First Appeal filed was also dismissed. In the Second Appeal this concurrent finding of fact was set aside by the High Court.

       Finding of the Court:

       Impugned judgment cannot be sustained.

       Result: Appeal allowed.

JUDGMENT

Deepak Gupta, J.

Ramkrishna Datta, Dhirendra Chandra Ghosh and Lalit Mohan Ghosh, filed a suit in the trial court for declaration of their title on the suit land with consequential relief of permanent injunction for restraining Aftarduddin (contesting defendant & appellant before this Court), who has since expired and is represented by legal heirs, from interfering in the suit land.

2. From the facts as pleaded and proved before the trial court it is apparent that one Sayed Jama Kazi was the raiyat (owner) of the suit land. Aftaruddin was under-raiyat (Kurfa rights similar to tenancy rights). This fact is apparent from the Revenue Record as reported in the Civil Survey of Settlement for the year 1965-66 and in the Revenue Khatiyan No.302 published on 15.03.96. On 11.01.71, Aftaruddin is alleged to have executed a sale deed transferring the entire suit land in favour of Mamataj Begam, daughter of the raiyat Sayed Jama Kazi. Thereafter, Mamataj Begam and Sayed Jama Kazi transferred the suit land to plaintiffs 1 and 2 by registered sale deed on 27.11.71. On 06.04.81 plaintiff no.2 sold and transferred a portion of his land to plaintiff no.3. In the Revenue Record the defendant Aftaruddin was shown to be in possession of the suit land. Therefore, the plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration of their title and prayed for injunction that defendant no.1 be restrained from interfering in the suit land.

3. The suit was contested by Aftaruddin and two contentions were raised: (i) that the sale deed was never executed by him and (ii) that being an under-raiyat he could not transfer his rights to any person in view of the bar created by Section 108 of the Tripura Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act, 1960 (for short the `TLR&LR Act'). The original sale deed was not produced on the ground that the same was destroyed in fire but a certified copy of the same was produced. The trial court held that though the sale deed had been executed, Aftaruddin could not have transferred his rights in the suit land and, therefore, dismissed the suit. The First Appeal filed was also dismissed. In the Second Appeal this concurrent finding of fact was set aside on the ground that it was a perverse finding. It was held by the High Court that in the sale deed Aftaruddin has represented himself to be a raiyat and not an under-raiyat and, therefore, Section 108 of TLR&LR Act had no application. The High Court also found that in terms of Section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act the subsequent vendee could not be denied their rights.

4. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant. A "raiyat" has been defined in Section 2(s) of the TLR&LR Act to mean a person who owns land for purposes of agriculture, paying land revenue to the Government; and "under-raiyat" under Section 2(v) means a person who cultivates or holds the land of raiyat under an agreement, express or implied, on condition of paying therefor rent in cash or in kind or delivering a share of the produce and includes a bargadar, i.e. a person who cultivates the land of any person on a condition of delivering a share of the produce to the land owner or raiyat.

5. Section 108 of TLR&LR Act reads as follows :-

"108. (1) The interest of under-raiyat in any land held by him as such shall be heritable but, save as otherwise provided in this Act, shall not be transferable.

(2) No under-raiyat shall be evicted from his land except as provided in this Act."

A bare reading of the aforesaid provision makes it absolutely clear that an under-raiyat is prohibited from transferring his interest as under-raiyat in any land though this interest is a heritable interest. Sub-section (2) provides that no under raiyat can be evicted except in accordance with the provisions of the TLR&LR Act. The TLR&LR Act was enacted as an agrarian reform legislation and the purpose of Section 108 is to prevent the under-raiyats or tenants from being evicted or being forcefully or dishonestly compelled to transfer their rights as under-rai



Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top