Back
High Court Of Calcutta
CHITTATOSH MUKHERJEE, S. K. BHATTACHARYYA
TARAK CHANDRA DHOLEY - Appellant
Versus
SATYANARAIN SINGH - Respondent
Civil Revision Case No. 619 of 1974
Decided On : 09/11/1975
WEST BENGAL ESTATES ACQUISITION ACT - RECORD OF RIGHTS - JURISDICTION OF CIVIL COURTS - SECTION 57B - INTERPRETATION - SUIT FOR DECLARATION OF TITLE AND ANCILLIARY RELIEFS - MAINTAINABILITY - SCOPE OF SECTION 57B (2) (A) AND (C) - DISTINCTION BETWEEN ALTERATION OF RECORD OF RIGHTS AND SUIT FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF TITLE - CIVIL COURT'S JURISDICTION NOT BARRED.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a suit in the Munsif Court for a declaration of his tenancy rights and title to certain lands, alleging that the Record of Rights was erroneous and that the defendant had no right, title, or interest in the suit properties. The defendant contested the suit and pleaded that the suit abated under Section 57b of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953, as it related to the alteration of an entry in the Record of Rights.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the suit was maintainable and that the Civil Court's jurisdiction was not barred under Section 57b of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953. The Court interpreted Section 57b (2) (a) and (c) and held that the suit did not relate to the alteration of any entry in the Record of Rights or to any matter which was to be or had been enquired into or determined by the State Government or any authority under the Act.
Issues: 1. Whether the suit for declaration of title and ancillary reliefs was maintainable? 2. Whether the Civil Court's jurisdiction was barred under Section 57b of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the suit was maintainable as it did not relate to the alteration of any entry in the Record of Rights or to any matter which was to be or had been enquired into or determined by the State Government or any authority under the Act. 2. The Court interpreted Section 57b (2) (a) and (c) and held that the suit did not come within the ambit of the said provisions. The Court held that Section 57b (2) (a) was intended to give finality to proceedings under Chapter-V of the Act, but it did not exclude the Civil Court's jurisdiction to entertain suits in respect of matters which did not arise at all or only incidentally arose for adjudication in such proceedings. The Court also held that Section 57b (2) (c) covered only the different kinds of enquiries and proceedings which may be conducted by the authorities mentioned under Section 53 of the Act, and that it did not cover disputes between private individuals relating to title and ancillary questions thereto.
Final Decision: The High Court made the rule absolute, set aside the order of the Munsif Court, and directed the Munsif Court to proceed with the case in accordance with law.
( 1 ) THE petitioner in this Rule as plaintiff has instituted a suit in the 2nd Court of Munsif at Serampore against the opposite parties, inter alia, for a declaration of his tenancy rights and/or title to the lands described in Schedule 'ka' and 'kha' of the plaint and for further declaration that the Record of Rights in so far as the same recorded the name of the defendant-opposite party No. 1 as a tenant under the State was wrong and that the rental recorded as Rs. 155/- instead of Rs. 110/- per year in respect of the Schedule lands was wrong and that the R. S. Khatian No. 3706 of 'kha' Schedule so far as it recorded Kundan Orao as a tenant under Kirti Chandra Mukhopadhyay and others instead of under the plaintiff was wrong and that the defendant No. 1 was just a caretaker and had no right, title and interest in the 'kha' Schedule properties and that there had been revocation of the said entrustment. The petitioner has also prayed for an order of permanent injunction for restraining the defendant No. 1 from interfering with his alleged possession in the 'ka' and 'kha' Schedule suit properties.
( 2 ) THE plaintiff-petitioner has averred that all along he had been a korfa tenant in possession at a rental of Rs. 110/- only per year in respect of properties described in Schedule 'ka' under the then landlords Kirti Chandra Mukhopadhyay and other and his name was so recorded in the C. S. Record of Rights. He claimed that after enforcement of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953 he had become a raiyat directly under the State of West Bengal, proforma defendant No. 2, in the suit. He had alleged that he had entrusted the defendant-opposite party No. 1, Satyanarain Singh, with the management of the said properties and he had allegedly leased out a portion of C. S. Plot No. 1722/2295 to one Kundan Orao. According to the plaintiff-petitioner the said Satyanarain Singh by making and manufacturing fraudulent and fictitious, illegal, invalid and inoperative papers and records in collusion with each other fraudulently got the lands in R. S. Khatian No. 3588 (new) recorded in his name and by opening of a three cottahs plot of R. S. Plot No. 1772/5678 in the name of Kundan Orao under the plaintiff's landlords Kirti Chandra Mukhpadhyay and others instead of under the plaintiff. The plaintiff has claimed that the said Records of Rights were wrong and without foundation and that the plaintiff and not the defendant No. 1 was the tenant thereof under the State at the rent of Rs. 110/- and not Rs. 155/ -.
( 3 ) THE defendant No. 1 has been contesting the said suit. He has, inter alia, disputed that the plaintiff was a tenant of the disputed land or that the Records of Rights in question were erroneous.
( 4 ) AFTER the learned Munsif heard the above suit in part, the opposite party No. 1 set up a plea that in view of Section 57b of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953 the suit could not proceed. The learned Munsif has passed an order that the suit falls within the ambit of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition (Second Amendment) Act, 1973, and, therefore, the suit had abated. The petitioner obtained the present rule against the said order recording abatement of his suit.
( 5 ) THE instant suit by the plaintiff-petitioner was after the final publication of the Record of Rights. The said suit was never stayed either under Section 46 or in terms of the first portion of Section 57b of the Act. Therefore, the question of abatement of the said suit after the expiry of the period prescribed for appeal under sub-section 3 of Section 44 does not arise. The learned Munsif while holding that the Section 57b debarred the Civil Court from trying the suit did not mention which particular clause of sub-section (2) of Section 57b would apply.
( 6 ) MR. Ganguly, learned Advocate for the opposite-party No. 1, has submitted before us that under clauses (a) and (c) of sub-section (2) of Section 57b the j
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
