HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Renupada Mukherjee, B. N. Banerjee
HAJI MUMTAJUDDIN - Appellant
Versus
DEBENDRA NATH SEAL - Respondent
A. F. A. D. 329 Of 1952
Decided On : APRIL 22, 1958
LAND REVENUE SALE - IDENTITY OF LAND PURCHASED - LIMITATION - ADVERSE POSSESSION - STARTING POINT - REVENUE SALE ACT (XI OF 1859), SECS. 27, 30 - LIMITATION ACT (IX OF 1908), ART. 144.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff purchased land at a collectorate sale for arrears of land revenue. The plaintiff attempted to take delivery of possession through the collectorate but was resisted by the defendants on the ground that the land really purchased by the plaintiff was a different land. The plaintiff got his name mutated in the collectorate and applied for demarcation of his land under the provisions of the Bengal Survey Act. The survey found that the holding purchased by the plaintiff did not correspond with the holding mentioned in the sale certificate. The plaintiff instituted the suit for declaration of his title to the disputed land, for recovery of Khas possession thereof and of mesne profits.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the identity of the disputed land should be established with reference to Billon's holding No. 104 and not Smart's holding No. 87. The title of the plaintiff respondent should be declared on that footing. The court also held that the period of adverse possession should be computed from the date when the sale became final and conclusive, which was 19-2-1932. The suit having been instituted on 18-2-1932, the requisite period of adverse possession was not completed and it fell short by one day. The court further held that the time during which the suit remained pending in the court of the Munsif should be excluded for computing the period of limitation, because the suit was prosecuted there in good faith and the Munsif was unable to entertain the suit for want of pecuniary jurisdiction.
Issues: 1. What is the true location and identity of the land purchased by plaintiff respondent, Debendra Nath Seal, at a collectorate sale held on 22-12-1931 for arrears of land revenue? 2. Whether the claim of the plaintiff respondent is barred by limitation or adverse possession?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The identity of the disputed land should be established with reference to Billon's holding No. 104 and not Smart's holding No. 87. The title of the plaintiff respondent should be declared on that footing. 2. The period of adverse possession should be computed from the date when the sale became final and conclusive, which was 19-2-1932. The suit having been instituted on 18-2-1932, the requisite period of adverse possession was not completed and it fell short by one day. 3. The time during which the suit remained pending in the court of the Munsif should be excluded for computing the period of limitation, because the suit was prosecuted there in good faith and the Munsif was unable to entertain the suit for want of pecuniary jurisdiction.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed with costs to the plaintiff respondent.
( 1 ) TWO questions have arisen for our decision in this appeal, first, what is the true location and identity of the land purchased by plaintiff respondent, Debendra Nath Seal, at a collectorate sale held on 22-12-1931 for arrears of land revenue and secondly, whether the claim of the plaintiff respondent is barred by limitation or adverse possession. These questions have arisen on the following allegations of the plaintiff in his plaint,
( 2 ) ONE David Alexander Wills was the owner of a holding in Dihi Panchannagram, Division 5, Sub-division J, of 24 Parganas Collectorate bearing No. 87 of Smart's survey and No. 104 of the old survey and also bearing a Sadar Jama of -/6/7 pies. The holding was sold through the collectorate of 24 Parganas for arrears of land revenue and purchased by the plaintiff respondent who obtained a sale certificate. The plaintiff attempted to take delivery of possession through the collectorate but was resisted by one Pannalal Rajak and others on the ground that the land really purchased by the plaintiff was a different land and the land of which the plaintiff wanted to take possession was really holding No. 105 and not 104 of the old survey. Thereafter the plaintiff got his name mutated in the collectorate and also applied for demarcation of his land under the provisions of the Bengal Survey Act and it was found by the surveyor after relayment of several maps in presence of the interested parties that holding No, 87 of Smart's did not correspond with holding No. 104 of the old survey, but it corresponded with a part of old rent free holding No. 105 and the old holding No. 104 corresponded with a part of Smart's holding No. 140. This survey case was disposed of on 14-2-1944, but the principal defendants Nos. 1 and 2 wrongfully kept the plaintiff out of possession of the disputed land and so he instituted the suit for declaration of his title to the disputed land, for recovery of Khas possession thereof and of mesne profits.
( 3 ) THE suit was contested by defendant No. 1. His defence in the main was that the plaintiff having purchased holding No. 87 of Smart's survey he is not entitled to claim any land outside that holding. The defendant also pleaded limitation.
( 4 ) THE trial court negatived the defence of the contesting defendant and decreed the suit. This decree was confirmed in the appeal filed by de (sic) No. 1 and so he has preferred this second appeal.
( 5 ) THE points requiring decision in this appeal are : (1) What is the identity of the land purchased by the plaintiff at the collectorate sale? Is the plaintiff respondent entitled to claim any land outside Smart's holding No. 87? (2) Is the claim of the plaintiff respondent barred by limitation or adverse possession?
( 6 ) WE shall take up these two points one after another.
( 7 ) AS to the first point, there is no question that the plaintiff respondent did purchase a holding of Dihi Panchannagram within the collectorate-of 24 Parganas and that the number of the holding is 87 according to Smart's survey which took place during the years 1903-1907. There was one other authoritative survey after that, namely, the Cadastral Survey of 1928-29. It was not disputed before us that the plan of the G. S. survey agrees with the plan of Smart's survey. Mr. Bagchi contended on behalf of the defendant appellant that these two surveys being of later dates than the survey of Smyth and Billon, the respective dates whereof were 1847-53 and 1868-70, and there being a presumption of correctness in favour of the C. S. records the two later surveys should prevail over the two earlier surveys and it should be held that the plaintiff respondent purchased holding No. 87 of Smart's survey and no other land. In support of this contention Mr. Bagchi relied on a case reported in 61 Cal LJ 18 : (AIR 1935 Cal 710) (A) (Bhupendra Krishna v. Abdur Rahaman) in which it has been held that in a conflict between the old record-of-rights and the rec
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.