Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Tapan Kumar Dutt, Mrinal Kanti Chaudhuri, JJ.
David Mantosh & Ors.
vs.
Apollo Gleneagles Hospital Ltd. & Ors.
F.A. No. 202 of 2008
with
CAN 1054 of 2013
Decided On: 27.09.2013
The plaintiff, the legal heir of the original owner, filed a suit for declaration of ownership and possession of the suit property, which was allegedly encroached upon by the defendant hospital. The defendants contested the suit, claiming that the suit property was vested as excess vacant land under the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976, and that they were allotted the property by the competent authority. The trial court dismissed the suit, holding that the suit was barred by limitation and that the plaintiffs had failed to prove their title to the property. The plaintiffs appealed to the High Court, which allowed the appeal and set aside the trial court's judgment. The defendants appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that: * The plaintiffs had proved their title to the suit property through various documents, including a deed of indenture, land record, and corporation record. * The defendant hospital had no right, title, or interest in the suit property since the person who filed the return under Section 6(1) of the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976, had no right, title, or interest in the property. * The vesting of the suit property was vitiated due to non-compliance with the mandatory provisions of the Act and Rules, including the failure to serve notice on the plaintiffs. * The plaintiffs were entitled to the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, which excludes the time spent in prosecuting other legal proceedings in good faith. * The suit was not barred by limitation. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, and restored the trial court's judgment dismissing the suit.
Fact of the Case:
The original owner of the suit property, Daisy Mantosh, purchased the property in 1937. After her death, her son James Mantosh inherited the property. In 1992, the defendant hospital encroached upon the suit property and started taking samples of soil. The plaintiffs, the legal heirs of Daisy Mantosh and James Mantosh, filed a suit for declaration of ownership and possession of the suit property.
Finding of the Court:
The Supreme Court held that the plaintiffs had proved their title to the suit property through various documents, including a deed of indenture, land record, and corporation record. The defendant hospital had no right, title, or interest in the suit property since the person who filed the return under Section 6(1) of the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976, had no right, title, or interest in the property. The vesting of the suit property was vitiated due to non-compliance with the mandatory provisions of the Act and Rules, including the failure to serve notice on the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs were entitled to the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, which excludes the time spent in prosecuting other legal proceedings in good faith. The suit was not barred by limitation.
Issues: * Whether the plaintiffs had proved their title to the suit property. * Whether the defendant hospital had any right, title, or interest in the suit property. * Whether the vesting of the suit property was valid. * Whether the suit was barred by limitation.
Ratio Decidendi: The Supreme Court held that the plaintiffs had proved their title to the suit property through various documents, including a deed of indenture, land record, and corporation record. The defendant hospital had no right, title, or interest in the suit property since the person who filed the return under Section 6(1) of the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976, had no right, title, or interest in the property. The vesting of the suit property was vitiated due to non-compliance with the mandatory provisions of the Act and Rules, including the failure to serve notice on the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs were entitled to the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, which excludes the time spent in prosecuting other legal proceedings in good faith. The suit was not barred by limitation.
Final Decision: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, and restored the trial court's judgment dismissing the suit.
Dr. Mrinal Kanti Chaudhuri, J. :-
This appeal is directed against the judgement and decree dated 24th April, 2008 passed by learned Judge, Small Causes Court, Sealdah in Title Suit No. 4 of 2005.
2. The plaintiffs/appellants’ case in short, is that the original plaintiff Daisy Mantosh and her brother James Mantosh were the owners of suit property measuring 2 bighas 2 katas 4 chataks 25 sq. ft. in Municipal premises No.73, Canal Circular Road, Calcutta, 700054 being holding No.42. After the death of Daisy Mantosh and her brother James Mantosh, present plaintiffs became the absolute owner of the suit property. The suit property originally belonged to one Abdul Jabbar who purchased the same in revenue sale. Abdul Jabbar transferred the suit property to one Molla Ataul Haque who again sold the said property to one Poonam Chand Seth by a deed of conveyance dated August 15, 1933. Poonam Chand Seth conveyed the said property by a deed of composition dated August 17, 1933 to Moti Chand Nakhat, Amrita Lal Shah, Thakor Lal Mehta and Champa Lal Daptari as trustees of a trust. Thereafter, said Moti Chand Nakhat, Amrita Lal Shah, Thakor Lal Mehta and Champa Lal Daptari sold the suit property to P.S. Mantosh, the predecessor-in-interest of the original plaintiff namely Daisy Mantosh and James Mantosh. After purchase, P.S. Mantosh mutated his name in the land records and Municipal records. After the death of P.S. Mantosh, his wife, sons and daughters inherited the said property as legal heirs.
3. Learned Police Magistrate at Sealdah in MP Case No.678 of 1938 under Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code passed a judgement and order dated 19th August, 1939 whereby late B.S. Mantosh, late James Mantosh were found to be the owners and possessors of suit premises bearing No. 73, Canal Circular Road, Calcutta.
4. Further case of plaintiffs/appellants is that Nabi Box never sold or transferred any right, title, interest and possession of the suit premises in favour of Moni Lal Goyee or Bijay Kumar Goyee. Moni Lal Goyee and Bijay Kumar Goyee instituted a Title Suit bearing No.50 of 1942 in the Court of learned 1st Additional Subordinate Judge at Alipore against P.S. Mantosh and James Mantosh for recovery of possession and other reliefs. Learned 5th Subordinate Judge at Alipore in T.S. No.50 of 1942 passed a compromise decree dated dated 17.01.1949 whereby late B.S. Mantosh and James Mantosh were held to be owners and possessors of the said land at premises bearing No. 73, Canal Circular Road, Calcutta.
5. Further case of the plaintiffs/appellants is that the officers of Janapriya Hospital Corporation on January 25, 1992 trespassed into the suit premises and started taking samples of the soil of the suit property claiming that the said company took lease of the suit premises by virtue of an order passed by Government of West Bengal/defendant No.4 and thereby the original plaintiffs were dispossessed from the suit premises. Subsequently, Janapriya Hospital Corporation Limited was renamed as Duncan Goenka Hospital Limited which was again renamed as Duncan Gleneagles Hospital Limited and finally renamed as Apollo Gleneagles Hospital Limited/defendant No.1. The further case of the plaintiffs/appellants is that, after enquiry they came to know that in the month of March, 1992, a notification had been issued and published in the Calcutta Gazette Extra Ordinary No.WBSO 247, I No. 93(1), dated February 15, 1990. By virtue of the said notification, the defendant No.3 being the competent authority under Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976 (30/1976) claimed that M/s. Orient Beverage Limited, the defendant No.2 was holding vacant land in excess of the ceiling limit and, therefore, the defendant No.2 filed a statement under Sub-section 1 of Section 6 of the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976 before the said authority, defendant No.3. The defendant No.2 specified the location, extent, value and other particulars of the alleged vacant land
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
