Back
2011 Supreme(Cal) 1136
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
TARUN KUMAR GUPTA, J.
Amarendra Kumar Bhattacharjee - Appellant
Versus
Rekha Bhattacharjee - Respondent
S. A. No.491 of 1996 AND S. A. T. No.465 of 1996
Decided on : Aug 19, 2011
Bhaskar Ghosh, Bidyut Baran Bisvas, Jiban Ratan Chatterjee, Koushik Dey, Subrata Mukherjee
In a land dispute involving the interpretation of ownership rights, the courts must consider all relevant evidence, including documentary evidence and the historical context, to determine the true ownership of the property.
Headnote:
LAND DISPUTE - WEST BENGAL ESTATE ACQUISITION ACT, 1953 - WEST BENGAL LAND REFORMS ACT - OWNERSHIP - ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE - RELEVANCE OF RECORD OF RIGHTS - INTERPRETATION OF DOCUMENTS - EFFECT OF VESTING.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiffs filed a suit claiming ownership over the suit property, alleging that their predecessor-in-interest, Nitendra Kumar Bhattacharjee, purchased the property in 1947 and took a loan from the government by mortgaging it. The defendants, Nitendra's brothers, contested the suit, claiming that Nitendra was entrusted with the money to purchase the property by their father, father-in-law, sister's husband, and father-in-law's brother, who were residing in erstwhile East Pakistan at the time.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court and the lower appellate court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiffs, holding that the defendants failed to establish that Nitendra was a mere trustee and not the real owner. The defendants appealed to the High Court.
Issues: 1. Whether the defendants succeeded in proving that Nitendra was a mere trustee and not the real owner of the suit property. 2. Whether the courts below erred in overlooking the effect of the records of rights prepared under the West Bengal Estate Acquisition Act and the West Bengal Land Reforms Act.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the defendants failed to provide direct evidence to support their claim that Nitendra was entrusted with the money to purchase the property. 2. The court noted that the finally published record of rights showed that the suit property was recorded in the names of Nitendra and his three brothers, indicating that Nitendra was not in exclusive possession of the entire property. 3. The court considered the historical context of the partition of India and the influx of refugees from East Pakistan, observing that it was common for people to entrust their relatives in India to purchase properties on their behalf. 4. The court found that the plaintiffs' sale of a portion of the suit property, claiming to have inherited it from their mother, who was one of the heirs of Purnachandra (Nitendra's father-in-law), supported the defendants' claim of ownership. 5. The court held that the trial court and the lower appellate court failed to give due weightage to the circumstantial evidence produced by the defendants and erred in overlooking the effect of the records of rights.
Final Decision: The High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the judgments and decrees of the lower courts. The court held that the defendants had successfully established their claim of ownership over the suit property.
Tarun Kumar Gupta, J.
1. THIS appeal is directed against judgment and decree dated 28th November, 1995 passed by learned Additional District Judge, 4th Court at Krishnanagar, District Nadia in Title Appeal No.140 of 1993 affirming the judgment and decree dated 18th March, 1993 passed by learned Munsif, 2nd Court at Krishnanagar District Nadia in Title Suit No.61 of 1990.
2. THE respondents filed said suit being Title Suit No.61 of 1990 alleging that their predecessor-in-interest namely Nitendra Kumar Bhattacharjee was resident of Shukhari village under Maiman Singha District, East Pakistan and came to India in 1947 after partition and purchased the suit property in C. S. Khatian No.40, Plot No.500 measuring 1.05 decimals and other non-suit property from Panchanan Singha Roy being guardian of owner minors Apurba Kumar Singha Roy and Amar Nath Singha Roy by a registered Kobala dated 16th December, 1947. Nitendra Kumar Bhattarcharjee took loan from Government of West Bengal under a scheme of giving loan to the refugees by mortgaging the suit property and other properties. As Nitendra was a railway employee, he entrusted his cousin brother-in-law Sunil Kumar Bhattacharjee to record the name of Nitendra in R. S. record of right. Nitendra died on 18th of May, 1985. Thereafter, Sunil Bhattacharjee prevented plaintiffs to possess the suit property and tried to record name of one Hare Krishna Dey as a Bargadar. A case was filed in the High Court on that score. Plaintiffs all along possessed the suit property by cultivation through hired labourers. On the strength of erroneous and baseless record of rights, the defendants tried to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit property. Hence was the suit.
Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 namely Amarendra Kumar Bhattacharjee and Ramarendra Kumar Bhattacharjee contested the suit by filing a joint written statement. They alleged inter alia that before partition Aswini Kumar Bhattacharjee, father of Nitendra and present defendant, Sudhansu Bhattacharjee, sisters husband of Nitendra, Jatindra Nath Bhattacharjee, brother of Nitendras father-in-law used to live in Maiman Singha. Nitendras father-in-law Purna Chandra Bhattacharjee as well as Nitendra were residing in Calcutta. The defendants, brothers of Nitendra, were minor at that time. Nitendra was entrusted by his father Aswini, sisters husband Sudhansu, father-in-law Purna and father-in-laws brother Jatindra for purchase of landed properties in West Bengal. Nitendra purchased 2.47 acres of land in plot No.500 of Mouza Bethoduari from their money but in his name as there were legal problems in purchasing landed properties in India in the name of persons residing in the then East Pakistan. After partition those persons came to India and got their respective shares of the property so purchased by Nitendra with their money. The 1.05 acres of land in plot No.500 was allotted in favour of Aswini, the father of Nitendra and defendants. During R. S. operation at the instance of Nitendra the respective shares of said property was recorded in the names of their owners namely Aswini, Sudhansu, Purna and Jatindra. Aswini died in 1960 and on his death the said recorded property devolved upon his four sons namely Nitendra and the three defendants in equal shares each having four anas share therein. R. S. record was finally published recording the suit property measuring 1.05 acres in the name of Nitendra and his three brothers. .60 acres in the name of Sudhansu, .59 acres in the name of Purna and .23 acres in the name of Jatindra. Harekrishna Dey was cultivating the suit property along with other properties as Bargadar under Nitendra and his brothers. The suit was liable to be dismissed.
3. LEARNED Trial Court framed as many as eight issues on the basis of the pleadings of the parties. On the basis of evidence on record, both oral and documentary, learned Trial Court came to the findings that defendants failed to establish that Nitendra was a mere trustee and not
