Back
2003 Supreme(Cal) 619
High Court Of Calcutta
Arun Kumar Mitra
SACHIN GHOSH - Appellant
Versus
NIRANJAN CHANDRA GHOSH - Respondent
S. A. 258 Of 1998
Decided On : 12/08/2003
ASHOK KUMAR, BIBEK RANJAN BOSE, Srikanta Dutta
Headnote:
WEST BENGAL LAND REFORMS ACT, 1955 - SECTIONS 51, 21(3), 21(4) - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 - ORDER 2 RULE 2, ORDER 7 RULE 7 - SUIT FOR DECLARATION OF TITLE AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION - JURISDICTION OF CIVIL COURT - APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 51 - APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 21(3) - SCOPE OF SCRUTINY OF DECISION OF BHAGCHAS OFFICER - POWER OF CIVIL COURT TO INTERFERE WITH DECISION OF BHAGCHAS OFFICER - PERVERSE JUDGMENT.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction in respect of the suit property. The suit was dismissed by the trial court, but the Appellate Court allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree of the trial court. The defendant preferred a second appeal.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that: (i) Section 51 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 is not attracted where there is no prayer for correction of record of rights. (ii) The decision under section 21(3) can come under the scrutiny of the Civil Court but to a limited extent as to whether the decision has been made in violation of the statutory provision or as to whether in violation of principles of natural justice or the decision has been taken without considering the materials evidence on record and not otherwise. (iii) The Appellate Court below failed to consider the evidence on record in its proper perspective and sometimes in contradictions, hence the lower Appellate Court can be termed as perverse.
Issues: 1. Whether this suit is maintainable in view of the provisions of section 51 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 and/or whether the provisions of section 51 is attracted in this case ever after amendment of pleadings. 2. Whether the Appellate Court below ought to have dismissed the suit observing that after arrival of the report from the Junior Land Reforms Officer under section 21 (3) of the West Bengal Reforms Act, nothing remains in the suit to be decided. 3. Whether the title of the plaintiff can be declared in the manner as prayed for without correcting the Record of Rights, more so when the State of West Bengal has been made party on amendment of the pleadings. 4. Whether the Appellate Court below acted in terms of section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure or acted on conjectures. 5. Whether the judgment and decree passed by the Appellate Court below is perverse or not.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 51 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 is not attracted where there is no prayer for correction of record of rights. 2. The decision under section 21(3) can come under the scrutiny of the Civil Court but to a limited extent as to whether the decision has been made in violation of the statutory provision or as to whether in violation of principles of natural justice or the decision has been taken without considering the materials evidence on record and not otherwise. 3. The Appellate Court below failed to consider the evidence on record in its proper perspective and sometimes in contradictions, hence the lower Appellate Court can be termed as perverse.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed. The judgment and decree passed by the Appellate Court below was set aside and the judgment and decree passed by the trial court was affirmed.
( 1 ) - This second appeal has been preferred challenging the judgment and decree dated 30. 9. 1997 and 06. 11. 1997 respectively passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jangipur in Title Appeal No. 25 of 1993 reversing the judgment and decree dated 10. 3. 1993 and 18. 3. 1993 respectively passed by the learned Munsif, 1st Court, Jangipur in Title Suit No. 61 of 1986.
( 2 ) THIS second appeal originates from a suit for declaration and permanent injunction. The case as has been made out by the plaintiffs in the plaint is inter alia as follows:
( 3 ) THE suit property belongs to them and they are in possession of the same. Originally Raghunath Ghosh alias Srikanta Ghosh and his wife Smt. Jogomaya Devi used to possess the suit property. During revisional settlement the name of Srikanta Ghosh, husband of Smt. Jogomaya Devi was recorded and in final publication also the same appeared. It has been stated that Srikanta Ghosh and his wife took settlement of plot No. 931 from the then Zamindar Purna Chandra Chattopadhyay and plot No. 1106 from the then Zamindar Bindu Basani Devi respectively. After their death Dharani, Binod and Joyram Ghosh inherited the same. Ultimately on the death of above three persons the suit property developed on Niranjan Chandra Ghosh and others. The said Niranjan Chandra Ghosh and others (respondents herein) used to possess the property and started enjoying the usufructs and those respondents even use to enjoy the mango of the trees of plot No. 931. According to the plaintiffs, (respondents herein) they have been enjoying the suit plot for more than 12 years.
( 4 ) DURING L. R. R. O. R. operation the defendant No. 1 got his name recorded as bargadar in respect of plot No. 1106. Though the name of Smt. Jogomaya Devi was duly recorded in the 13th column of plot No. 931, the name of one Raghunath Saha was recorded in respect of same plot. The name of Raghunath Saha was recorded in respect of plot No. 931 in lieu of the name of Raghunath Ghosh. The plaintiffs further stated that taking advantage of such erroneous R. O. R. defendant No. 1 threatened to grab the crops standing on the suit property and dispossess the plaintiffs therefrom. Defendant No. 1 has no interest in the suit property. It has also been stated in the plaint that if the defendant No. 1 is able to produce documents before the Court to establish his right as bargadar, such document will be forged one. The defendant No. 1 tried to dispossess the plaintiffs from the suit property. So the plaintiffs filed the suit in the Civil Court.
( 5 ) IN defence the defendant No. 1 in the Written Statement contended that actually plot No. 1106 belonged to Bindu Basani Devi. Then Jogamaya Devi, 2nd wife of one Raghunath Saha purchased the same through registered deed dated 30. 4. 1949. The plot No. 931 belonged to Madan Mohan Ghosh. Nathu Ghosh inherited the same, on the death of Madan Mohan Ghosh. Then he sold the same to Raghunath Saha through Registered Deed dated 13. 11. 1996. Raghunath Saha inducted defendant No. 1 (respondent No. 1 herein) as bargadar in the suit land. He cultivated the suit properties under Raghunath Saha and his wife Jogamaya Devi, said Jogomaya Saha takes share of produce of plot No. 1106 as land lady. On the death of Raghunath Saha, defendant No. 1 delivers the Bhag produce of plot No. 931 to defendant No. 2 to 5. The defendants Nos. 2 to 5 (respondents Nos. 2 to 5 therein) also contested the suit supporting the case of the defendant No. 1.
( 6 ) ON the above pleadings the trial Court framed the following Issues:1. IS the suit maintainable in its present form? 2. Is the suit barred by limitation? 3. Is the suit bad for defect or parties? 4. Is the suit barred by section 21 (3) of WBLR Act? 5. Have the plaintiff acquired any right, title and interest over the suit property? 6. Are the plaintiffs entitled to get decree as prayed for?
( 7 ) TO what other relief, if any, are the plaintiffs entitled? the lear
