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 Declaratory Suit – Second appeal by unsuccessful plaintiff – Plaintiffs-appellants on the basis of materials on record have been able to prove that suit property was settled by ex-landlord in favour of original plaintiffs (heirs of appellants) and on settlement they came in possession and paid rent to ex-landlord, which was accepted and rent receipts were granted – Actual possession and acceptance of rent by ex-landlord creates Raiyati interest in favour of settlee – After vesting of Zamindari, Jamabandi was created in favour of original plaintiffs and plaintiffs acquired title to property and both courts below have concurrently found possession of plaintiffs over suit property which fact is also corroborated from remarks column of Municipal Survey Khatiyan – Revisional or Municipal Survey entry neither creates nor extinguishes title, and as such, they have no document of title rather they are per-dominantly based on actual physical possession – Plaintiffs are entitled to get their title and possession declared with respect to suit property especially when there is presumption of continuity of possession before vesting and after vesting of Zamindari coupled with settled law that possession must be deemed to follow title – Impinged Judgment set aside and suit of plaintiffs-appellants decreed – Second Appeal allowed. (Paras 19, 20 and 23)
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:-
“(a) Whether the first appellate court was justified in not admitting the evidence regarding Municipal Survey Parcha which would have connected it with the old G.S. plots, and claimed as the suit plots as also regarding the amendment of the plaint with respect to the year of settlement ?
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:-
Mouza- Madhopara, Thana No.108, Thana: Sadar (K.Hat), District Purnea.
BOUNDARY
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:
North- Madhu Das and Janakdhari Das
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 and 40 Ares respectively recorded in the name of the plaintiffs.
7. The further case of the plaintiffs is that the defendants, who have no manner of right, title, interest and pos
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.
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....
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....
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.
The settlement order, revenue records, and lack of evidence supporting adverse possession claims were crucial in establishing the plaintiffs' continuous possession and defeating the defendants' claim....
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.
Possession follows title; entries in revenue records do not confer ownership. A suit for injunction is maintainable without seeking declaration of title when possession is established.
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
