Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
KHATIM REZA, J.
Ram Prasad Das Son of Late Bhauli Das – Appellant
Versus
Deebakar Das son of Late Sukhdeo Das – Respondent
Second Appeal No.535 of 1999
Decided on : 04-01-2024
PROPERTY LAW - TITLE AND POSSESSION - BIHAR LAND REFORMS ACT, 1950; RELEVANT CASE LAW - The court discussed the principles of title and possession under the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950, emphasizing that actual possession and acceptance of rent by the ex-landlord create Raiyati interest. The court interpreted that entries in municipal survey records do not extinguish title but are based on actual possession. The court's decision was influenced by the established legal principle that possession is a strong indicator of title, leading to the conclusion that the plaintiffs had rightful ownership and possession of the suit land.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration of title and confirmation of possession over certain plots of land, claiming that their names were wrongfully removed from municipal records. They asserted that they had acquired the land through settlement from the ex-landlord and had been in continuous possession, supported by rent receipts. The defendants contested the claim, asserting their own title based on a registered sale deed and adverse possession.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, confirming their title and possession. However, the lower appellate court reversed this decision, stating that the plaintiffs failed to prove their title. The appellate court noted discrepancies in the description of the land in the plaint and the schedule, leading to its dismissal of the suit.
Issues: 1. Whether the appellate court erred in not admitting evidence regarding the Municipal Survey Parcha. 2. Whether the plaintiffs' possession was sufficient to establish their title despite the appellate court's findings. 3. Whether the defendants proved their claim of title and possession over the suit land.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that actual possession, coupled with the acceptance of rent by the ex-landlord, creates a Raiyati interest in favor of the settlee. It emphasized that entries in municipal records do not extinguish title and that possession is a strong indicator of ownership. The court found that the plaintiffs had established their title and possession over the suit land, contrary to the findings of the lower appellate court.
Final Decision: The court set aside the judgment of the lower appellate court, reinstated the trial court's decree in favor of the plaintiffs, and affirmed their title and possession over the suit land.
JUDGMENT :
KHATIM REZA, J.
Heard learned senior counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the respondents.
2. The instant Second Appeal has been filed against the Judgment of reversal dated 12.10.1999, passed in Title Appeal No.52/1992 (Tr. No.3/1996) by the 4th Additional District Judge, Purnea, whereby the learned Lower Appellate Court reversed the judgment and decree dated 15.09.1992, passed in Title Suit No.35/1990,by the learned Munsif, Sadar, Purnea whereby the suit filed by the plaintiffs- appellants was decreed.
3. In the present Second Appeal, the following substantial questions of law have been formulated for determination:-
b) Whether the appellate court was justified in dismissing the suit of the plaintiff-respondents even after holding that the plaintiffs-respondents were found to be in possession of their names were recorded in the Municipal Survey records of right in the column of possession ?
c) Whether the appellate court was further Justified in dismissing the suit, even after holding that the defendants had failed to prove their right and title over the suit land?
d) Any other question of law that may be pointed out by the parties and which the Court may deem fit and proper for consideration in this appeal.”
4. In order to guage the matter in its correct perspective, it is necessary to briefly restate what the suit entails. The plaintiffs- appellants filed Title Suit No. 35/1990 for declaration of their title and confirmation of possession over the suit land on an adjudication that the entry of the name of the defendants -Respondent Nos.1 and 2, in respect of the suit land, is wrong. The details of the suit land has been mentioned in the Schedule to the plaint, which reads as under:-
| MS Khata No | MS Plot No. | Area | Remarks |
| 144 | 788, | 05.40 Ares | Carved out of C.S. Plot No. 819, 811 and 813. |
|
| 473 | 14.10 |
|
|
|
| Total 19.50 |
|
North- Janakdhari Das and Malhu Das
South- Road Municipality
East- Dhar
West-Plaintiffs house and lands
5. The case of the plaintiffs, in brief, is that 3 bigha land of Mouza-Madhopara of Khewat No.11 C.S. Khata 51 (Part) bearing C.S. Plot Nos. 811, 813 and 819 was acquired by Bhauli Das from the Khewatdar, namely, Maulvi Mohammad Hanif Sahab in the year 1953 and came in possession of the said land. The plaintiffs used to pay rent to the Khewatdar and after the vesting of tenures under Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950, name of the plaintiffs were mutated and Jamabandi was created in the name of the plaintiffs and rent receipts were issued in their favour. The boundary of the land settled was as under:
South- Municipal Road
East- Dhar
West- Dukha Das and Janak Das
6. It is the further case of the plaintiffs that immediately after settlement, they constructed their house to live with their families. The holding of the house built over part of the land was created as holding No.27 of ward No.1/19, Mohalla-Gwala Toli and on payment, rent receipts was issued in favour of the plaintiffs. The remaining portion of the land is being used for agriculture, Bari-jhari and for keeping cow to the knowledge of all concerned. The land lying towards East of the plaintiffs has not been surveyed in Municipal Survey. During recent Municipal Survey, the Survey Authorities finding the title and possession of the plaintiffs issued Purcha in the name of the plaintiffs showing that MS Plot No. 473 has been carved out of CS Plot No. 819 (part) with an area of 14 Ares 10 point and MS Plot No. 474(Ka) and (Kha) carved out of CS Plot nos. 811, 813 and 819 (part) measuring area of 2 Ares, 30 points an
Possession of land, supported by historical rent receipts and acknowledgment by the ex-landlord, is sufficient to establish title, and municipal survey entries do not negate this title.
Entries in revenue records do not create or extinguish title; the right to sue arises from the threat of dispossession, and possessory title can be sufficient to establish ownership against all but t....
Point of law: The principle of lis pendens is still settled principle of law. In this connection, the Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Ram Peary, AIR 1978 All 318] has considered the scope o....
The principle of 'possession follows title' applies only when ownership is established; mere possession without title does not confer rights.
The need for a fair consideration of evidence and the requirement for the Government to disclose crucial evidence in land dispute cases.
Concurrent findings of fact by the Trial Court and First Appellate Court are binding and cannot be interfered with under Section 100 of the CPC.
The burden of proof lies on the party asserting ownership or adverse possession, and mere entries in khatian records do not suffice to establish title without supporting evidence.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
