Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Asim Kumar Mondal, J.
Sri Purna Chandra Jana & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
The State of West Bengal & Ors. – Respondents
S.A. No. 730 of 1990
Decided On : 16-05-2014
LAND DISPUTE - ADMISSIBILITY OF JUDGMENT - REVENUE RECORDS - PRESUMPTION OF CORRECTNESS - WEST BENGAL LAND REFORMS ACT, 1955 - INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 - SECTION 43, 42, 13, 35, 74 - RATIO DECIDENDI: A judgment in a previous suit, even if not inter parties, is admissible as evidence and can be relied upon in a subsequent suit for the same property, provided it is not sought to be relied upon as a precedent but as a piece of evidence. The presumption of correctness of revenue records is rebuttable and can be challenged by documentary and oral evidence.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction in respect of a property that was recorded in the names of Laxmi Priya Ray and Ajoy Kumar Hazra with a note of vesting to the Government of West Bengal. The State of West Bengal contested the suit, claiming that the property had been vested to the State under the provisions of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955, and that pattas had been distributed to 11 persons who were exercising right, title, and possession over the suit property.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court held that the plaintiffs had established their title to the suit property and that the defendants had failed to produce any evidence to support their claim that the property had been vested to the State. The lower appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment, holding that the plaintiffs had failed to rebut the presumption of correctness of the revenue records and that the State was not bound by the judgment in the previous suit as it was not a party to that suit.
Issues: 1. Whether the judgment in the previous suit was admissible and could be relied upon by the plaintiffs, even though the State of West Bengal was not a party to that suit. 2. Whether the plaintiffs had adduced sufficient evidence to prove their title to the suit property, despite the presumption of correctness of the revenue records.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. A judgment in a previous suit, even if not inter parties, is admissible as evidence and can be relied upon in a subsequent suit for the same property, provided it is not sought to be relied upon as a precedent but as a piece of evidence. (See Section 43 and 42 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872) 2. The presumption of correctness of revenue records is rebuttable and can be challenged by documentary and oral evidence. (See Section 35 and 74 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872)
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the judgment of the lower appellate court was set aside. The judgment of the trial court was confirmed.
Asim Kumar Mondal, J.
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated September 19th, 1989 and decree dated September 26th, 1989 passed by learned Additional District Judge, 6th Court, Midnapore in Title Appeal No. 297 of 1988 reversing the judgment dated July 13th, 1988 and decree dated July 23rd, 1988. One Purna Chandra Jana, Gangadhar Jana and six others filed a suit against Biswanath Roy and State of West Bengal and three others seeking relief for declaration and permanent injunction.
2. The fact of the case which are necessary for the purpose of the present appeal is narrated below.
3. Suit property as described in the schedule belong to one Dinu Jana, Nirmal Jana, Gobinda Jana and Indra Narayan Jana. The parties have ¼th share each in the property. The land was recorded in C.S. Khatian No. 24 of Mouza Tilakhulia. Nirmal Jana died leaving behind his widow Jalad Bala Jana as only heirs. She died leaving behind Atul and Tapasi as heirs of predecessor of the plaintiff. Dinu Jana died leaving two sons, Atul and Tapasi and his wife Bhusan Kumari. Bhusan Kumari died leaving Atul and Tapasi. Atul died unmarried. Tapasi died leaving his wife, two sons and five daughters who are the plaintiffs of this suit.
4. By amicable partition among the co-sharers 2.50 acres of land which was recorded in Khatian No. 24 was allotted to Dinu Jana. Dinu Jana by a deed of gift in the year 1969 transferred the suit property to his wife Bhusan Kumari. Her two sons Atul and Tapasi inherited the said property after her death. On the death of Atul his heir devolved of his brother Tapasi and subsequently on his death it is devolved on the plaintiffs and they are possessing the suit property all along.
5. One Phani Bhusan Khan obtained one sale deed dated March 19th, 1949 in respect of 1.67 and ½ acres of land in plot No. 14 and 16 from Jalad Bala Dasi. Gobinda Jana and Indra Narayan Jana on its basis claimed ¾th share out of 2.5 acres of land and filed a partition suit being Title Suit No. 106 of 1949 at the Court of Munsiff, Midnapore implicating Tapasi and Atul as defendant No. 1 and 2 and plaintiffs as proforma defendants. The suit was dismissed. Court accepted Dinu Jana as the sole owner. Against the said dismissal decree Phani Bhusan Khan preferred an appeal being Title Appeal No. 12 of 1951 in the Court of District Judge, Midnapore and the said appeal had transferred the learned Sub-judge, First Court at Midnapore was also dismissed on contest. Then a second appeal was preferred to this High Court being S.A. No. 842 of 1952. The second appeal was also dismissed.
6. It is found that 67 decimals of land in plot No. 14 and 66 dismissal of land in plot No. 14 of Schedule A and B are recorded in the name of Laxmi Priya Ray and in the name of Ajoy Kumar Hazra with a note of vesting to the Government of West Bengal. The records of rights is erroneous. The defendants have threatened to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit property. Hence the suit filed at the first instance before learned Trial Court being No. T.S. 46 of 1987.
7. Before the Trial Court the defendant No. 5 i.e. the State of West Bengal has only contested. The case of the defendant No. 5 is that property have been vested to the State and the possession has been taken under the provisions of E.A. Act and area of .46 acres has been allotted to some persons as Rayati as alleged by the State. Pattas have been distributed to them and they are exercising the right, title and possession of the suit property.
8. Learned Trial Court framed as many as seven issues and the evidences were led by the parties.
9. Learned Trial Court after considering the evidences and materials before him has been pleased to hold that Phani Bhushan Khan filed partition suit claiming ¾th share in the suit property. On the basis of a sale deed executed by Jalad Bala Jana, Gobinda and Indra Narayan Jana. The learned Munsiff dismissed the suit by judgment dated October 7th, 1950 holding that Dinu Jana had title and
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
