SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1977 Supreme(Cal) 141

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
ANIL KUMAR SEN AND MANASH NATH ROY, JJ.
Kanai Lal Mitra & Anr. - Appellants
Versus
Nitya Nanda Roy & Anr. – Respondents
Second Appeal No. 1160 of 1967
Decided on: May 6, 1977

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared
Manindra Nath Ghose and Sourendra Prosad Ghose for the Appellants
Rabi Ranjan Dasgupta and Gaganendra Kishore Deb for the Respondents no. 1

The presumption of correctness attached to entries in the Record of Rights can be rebutted by evidence to the contrary.

Headnote:

LANDLORD AND TENANT - SETTLEMENT - POSSESSION - PRESUMPTION - EVIDENCE - ADMISSIBILITY - CERTIFIED COPY OF KABULIYA - REBUTTAL OF PRESUMPTION - LIMITATION.

Fact of the Case:

Plaintiff brought a suit for declaration of title, recovery of possession, and mesne profits in respect of 3 cottas of homestead land and a one-storied building thereon. The plaintiff claimed that the land was settled in favor of Md. Reza by the Mitras, who then demised 3 cottas to Abdul Khalek Ansari (Khalek), who in turn obtained a Mourasi Mokarari Patta in respect of 2 cottas from some of the superior Mitra landlords. Khalek built a one-storied building on the land and possessed it till his death in 1950. After Khalek's death, his heirs inherited the property and sold it to the plaintiff in 1953. The defendants claimed that the settlement was taken jointly by Md. Reza and his brother Abdul Sattar, and that Khalek was only a licensee. They also claimed to have purchased the property from Jagannath Sharma, who had purchased it from the heirs of Md. Reza and Sattar.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the settlement was taken exclusively by Md. Reza, and that Khalek had obtained a valid right, title, and interest in the suit properties. The court also found that the plaintiff had acquired a perfect title as a purchaser for value. The court further found that the entries in the Record of Rights were not conclusive and that the presumption of correctness attached to them had been rebutted by the plaintiff's evidence.

Issues: 1. Whether the plaintiff had right, title, and interest in the suit property? 2. Whether the suit was barred by limitation? 3. Whether the plaintiff was entitled to any damages from the defendants?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the plaintiff had acquired a valid right, title, and interest in the suit properties through the sale from the heirs of Khalek. 2. The court held that the suit was not barred by limitation since the plaintiff had been in possession of the property until 1962. 3. The court held that the plaintiff was entitled to damages from the defendants for wrongful dispossession.

Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the judgment and decree of the lower court were affirmed.

JUDGMENT

Roy, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated March 21, 1967 passed in Title Appeal No. 773 of 1966, by Sri K.K. Sarker, Additional District Judge, 11th Court, Alipore, affirming thereby the judgment and decree dated March 31, 1966, made by Sri Raghabendra Banerjee, Subordinate Judge, 5th Court, Alipore, in Title Suit No. 30 of 1964.

2. Although in a second appeal of the present nature findings of fact are not open for challenge, in this cage however the lower appellate Court in arriving at such findings did not give effect to the presumption arising out of the entries in the Record of Rights and as such the findings of fact became open for challenge in this appeal in view of the Privy Council decision in the case of (1) Shankar Rao v. Shambhu Wallad, 45 CWN 57. Accordingly we are considering facts as we do in Appeals from Original Decrees.

3. The plaintiff respondent No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff) on or about May 25, 1964, brought Title Suit No. 30 of 1964 against the defendant-appellants (hereinafter referred to as the defendants), for declaration of title, recovery of possession and mesne profits in respect of 3 cottas of homestead and with an one storied building standing thereon and as recorded in R.S. Plot No. 1673 of Khatian Nos. 703/1 and 667/7 of Mouja Naihati (hereinafter referred to as the suit properties). It was the case of the plaintiff that originally a plot of land measuring more or less 6 cottas was taken settlement of by Md. Reza from the erstwhile Mitra landlords (hereinafter referred to as the Mitras) in the year 1929. According to the plaintiff out of the said 6 cottahs of land, the said Md. Reza demised 3 cottas in the northern portion in favour of Abdul Khalek Ansari (hereinafter referred to as the Khalek) on August 21, 1929 at a rental of Rs. 15/- per year and built a one-storied building thereon. That the said Khalck in his turn on May 8, 1930 obtained a Mourasi Mokarari Patta in respect of 2 cottas of land out of the said 3 cottas from some of the superior Mitra landlords and thereafter he continued to possess the same till his death in the early part of 1950 without any obstacle or obstruction from anybody and after the death of the said Khalek, his 3 sons, a widow and his mother inherited the said properties. The plaintiff's further case is that due to communal riots, the heirs of the said Khalek kept the disputed house under lock and key and shifted elsewhere and thereafter they sold the suit properties by a registered Kobala dated February 9, 1953 (Ext.2) for valuable' consideration to the plaintiff and transferred all their rights, title and interest in the same to him. It has also been stated that in the meantime some persons broke open the lock and entered into the suit properties as a result whereof the plaintiff had to move the competent authority under the provisions of Rehabilitation of the Displaced Persons and Eviction of Persons in Unauthorised Occupation of Land Act, 1951 (Act XVI of 1951), for the purpose of ousting the trespassers and after a protracted proceeding got back possession of the entire property on February, 3, 1962, when the last of the trespassers left. The plaintiff then kept the house on lock & key but on the following date the defendants forcibly broke open the padlock and wrongfully trespassed into the suit property. After failing to get back possession in a proceeding under Sec. 145 Cr. P.C. the plaintiff had to file the above suit.

4. The suit was contested by the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 and their defence inter alia was that the settlement of 6 cottas of land was not obtained in the year 1929 by the said Md. Reza alone, but the said settlement was taken jointly by Md. Reza and his brother Abdul Sattar (hereinafter referred to as the Sattar) out of their joint funds, each having equal share in the 6 cottas of the land in question. It has been asserted that under the Mourasi Mokarari Patta, the said Khalek obtained 3 ann


































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top