Back
High Court Of Calcutta
MONORANJAN MALLICK, M. N. RAY
RAM KRISHNA GRANTHAGAR - Appellant
Versus
AHI BHUSAN GHOSH - Respondent
S. A. 648 Of 1989
Decided On : 10/10/1991
ADVERSE POSSESSION - TACKING OF POSSESSION - RAMKRISHNA GRANTHAGAR V. AHI BHUSHAN PAUL - WEST BENGAL PUBLIC LIBRARIES ACT - VESTING OF PROPERTY - NON-AGRICULTURAL TENANCY ACT - RETENTION OF LAND - W.B. LAND REFORMS ACT - VESTING OF INTEREST - RIGHT OF POSSESSION - TRESPASSER - INTERMEDIARY - MORARARI MAURASI - W.B. ESTATES ACQUISITION ACT - RETAINED LAND - SECOND APPEAL - NEW PLEA - QUESTION OF LAW - UNDISPUTED OR PROVEN FACTS - SURPRISE OR UNFAIR PREJUDICE - GROUNDS OF APPEAL - VAGUENESS.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff-respondent brought a suit for declaration of title, recovery of possession, permanent, and mandatory injunction, alleging exclusive ownership and possession of the suit property. Defendant-appellant claimed adverse possession, tacking of possession from local people and unregistered societies, and argued that the plaintiff lost the right of retention under the W.B. Land Reforms Act due to non-agricultural tenancy status. The plaintiff contended that their interest was Morarari Maurasi, not governed by the Non-Agricultural Tenancy Act, and that they had retained the land under the W.B. Estates Acquisition Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the defendants failed to establish adverse possession by cogent evidence and that the plaintiff's possession was within the limitation period. The court also held that the suit property did not vest with the local library authority under the W.B. Public Libraries Act since the defendants occupied it as trespassers. The court further found that the plaintiff's interest was not that of a non-agricultural tenant governed by the W.B. Non-Agricultural Tenancy Act and that their interest vested in the State under the W.B. Land Reforms Act. The court dismissed the appeal with costs.
Issues: 1. Whether the defendants could tack their possession with that of local people and unregistered societies to establish adverse possession. 2. Whether the suit property vested with the local library authority under the W.B. Public Libraries Act. 3. Whether the plaintiff's interest was that of a non-agricultural tenant governed by the W.B. Non-Agricultural Tenancy Act and whether their interest vested in the State under the W.B. Land Reforms Act.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the defendants failed to establish adverse possession by cogent evidence and that the plaintiff's possession was within the limitation period. The court also held that the suit property did not vest with the local library authority under the W.B. Public Libraries Act since the defendants occupied it as trespassers. 2. The court further found that the plaintiff's interest was not that of a non-agricultural tenant governed by the W.B. Non-Agricultural Tenancy Act and that their interest vested in the State under the W.B. Land Reforms Act.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal with costs.
( 1 ) THIS is an appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, 2nd Court, Howrah dt. 17. 3. 87 in T. A. No; 293/84 timing the judgment and decree passed by the 3rd Asstt. District Judge, Howrah in T. S. No. 63/81.
( 2 ) THE facts which may be necessary for disposing of the appeal may by briefly stated as follows :the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 has brought the above Title Suit for declaration of title, recovery of possession, permanent and mandatory injunction alleging that the plaintiff along with the respondents Nos. 6 and 7 are the exclusive owners of the suit property bearing Holding No. 9, Naba Kumar Nandy Lane and were in possession of the suit-property therein. He is an old man and used to live in Calcutta and for his service had to remain mostly at Beharampur while his nephews respondent Nos. 5 and 6 have been residing at Bangalore for their avocation. The plaintiff' sometime in 1980 on receipt of Summons in connection with the T. S. No. 154/80 pending in the local 3rd Munsif's Court, Howrah went to the suit property and found to his astonishment the existence of a club raising construction. As he raised protest, the Secretary and some members of the club proposed hi to sell the suit property to them which he refused. On enquiry in the Howrah Municipality he came to know that the name of the said club has been recorded as occupier on and from 24. 2. 78 and the name of one Anjan Roy was recorded as Secretary of the respondent No. 1 Ramkrishna Granthagar. On approaching the Municipal Authority for correction of their record the Authorities asked him to seek legal redress. The plaintiff having, thus found that the respondent No. 1 is in possession of the suit land illegally by raising the construction, the plaintiff has tied this suit for declaration of title, recovery of possession for mandatory injunction for removal of the structure and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff and the proforma defendants 7 and 8. The defendant No. I through its Secretary, Sankar Bhattacharjee has filed written statement and Sri Sankar Mukherjee, the defendant No. 6 had also filed written statement.
( 3 ) THE contentions raised by both the defendants being the same may be briefly stated as follows :-THE suit property was being possessed by the local people for more than seventy years for performing Puja of Sri Sri Rakhakali Mata and the local boys also used the suit property as their play ground, Later on the local people organised an Association in the name of Jaganmata Ba. rwari and Mahajati Samity having their office at suit land. Thereafter, Mahajati Samity being defunct the land was being used by the aforesaid Jaganmata Barwari and later on in 1969 the members organised a library raising a hut in the suit land. Prior to that, however, the club members fenced the land with wall in between 1958 and 1960 and they used to observe national function like Netaji Jayanti and Naba Barsha inside the holding. Subsequently, the members of the said Barwari changed the name and style of the club to Ramkrishna Granthagar in 1969 after absorption of the existing structure and other amenities and the Ramkrishna Granthagar continued to occupy the said property catering to the needs of the local people. The club was registered in 1972 and it received financial assistance from the State Government and other assistance from various sources. They also opened a Child Development Project in an annexed room of the club. The owner of the Holding No. 8 filed a false suit being T. S. No. 154/80 in the local Munsif's Court to grab a strip of land belonging to Holding No. 1 and has now set up the present plaintiff to file this suit. But the defendant being in possession of the property for more than twelve years have acquired title by adverse Possession and the present suit is liable to be dismissed.
( 4 ) THE learned Trial Judge on conside
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
