Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Debangsu Basak, J.
Kartick Chandra Kamila - Appellant
Versus
Prafulla Kumar Mali – Respondent
S.A. No. 162 of 1999
Decided on : 11-03-2014
For the Appellant :Mr. P.B. Sahoo and Mr. Sudhakar Biswas, Advocates.
Records of Rights are not proof of title and cannot be relied upon to determine title to immovable property in the presence of registered deeds.
Headnote:
LAND TITLE DISPUTE - TITLE DEEDS VS. RECORDS OF RIGHTS - REVENUE RECORDS AS EVIDENCE OF POSSESSION - RECORDS OF RIGHTS NOT PROOF OF TITLE - PLAINTIFF'S TITLE ESTABLISHED THROUGH REGISTERED DEEDS - DEFENDANT FAILED TO PROVE PARENTAGE - RELIANCE ON RECORDS OF RIGHTS BY APPEAL COURT ERRONEOUS.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff claimed title to the suit property through registered deeds, while the defendant claimed title based on entries in the Records of Rights and alleged that the plaintiff's vendor did not inherit the property.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the plaintiff discharged the burden of proof by disclosing and proving the title deeds, while the defendant failed to establish his parentage beyond reasonable doubt. The court also held that Records of Rights cannot be considered as documents of title and have only evidentiary value of possession which is rebuttable.
Issues: 1. Whether entries in the Records of Rights would prevail over registered deeds to determine title to immovable property. 2. Whether the defendant was the son of the previous owner, Gunadhar Mali.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Entries in the Records of Rights are not proof of title but only statements for revenue purposes. 2. The defendant failed to establish his parentage beyond reasonable doubt, and the plaintiff's title deeds were stronger evidence of title.
Final Decision: The court allowed the second appeal, set aside the judgment of the Appeal Court, and restored the decree of the Trial Court. The plaintiff was granted a decree of declaration and permanent injunction as prayed for.
Debangsu Basak, J.
1. A suit for declaration and permanent injunction was decreed by the Trial Court. On appeal, the decree was reversed. The suit was dismissed with cost. Hence the present second appeal. The plaintiff in Title Suit No. 286 of 1985 divided the immovable properties involved in the suit into three Schedules namely Schedule A, B and C. So far as Schedule A property was concerned, the plaintiff claimed that, he purchased the same from the recorded owner and, therefore, came into possession thereof. In respect of the Schedule B property, the plaintiff stated that it belonged to Draupadi Bewa who by a deed of gift dated September 23, 1921 transferred it to Gunadhar Mali. Gunadhar Mali died leaving behind only one heir and legal representative, his wife, Gayamoni. Gayamoni sold Schedule B property to the father of the plaintiff by a registered deed dated January 24, 1937. The father of the plaintiff, therefore, came into possession of the Schedule B property. So far as Schedule C property was concerned, Sashibhusan Das sold the same by a registered deed of conveyance in 1922 to the father of the plaintiff. The father of the plaintiff came into possession of the Schedule C land. After the death of his father the plaintiff came into possession of the Schedule B and C land.
2. It was claimed by the plaintiff that, the defendant wrongfully got the properties recorded in the Records of Rights in his name. When the defendant threatened the plaintiff with dispossession, the plaintiff was constrained to file the instant suit. The plaintiff therefore prayed for declaration of title and for permanent injunction. The defendant contested the suit by filing written statement. In the written statement it was claimed that, all of the suit property originally belonged to Draupadi Bewa and that, by a registered deed of gift dated September 23, 1921 Draupadi Bewa transferred those lands in favour of Gunadhar Mali. Gunadhar Mali was the father of the defendant. After the death of Gunadhar Mali, the defendant succeeded to the suit land in view of the old Hindu law, which did not permit the widow to succeed to the deceased husband's property. The defendant also claimed that, Gayamoni on the death of her husband, out of poverty, used to work in the house of the father of the plaintiff. The father of the plaintiff by misrepresentation and by practising fraud got the suit property transferred in his favour. The defendant claimed that, he inherited the property from Gunadhar Mali, was in possession of the suit property, and was paying rent to the Government. The defendant, therefore, contended that, the suit was liable to be dismissed as the plaintiff did not acquire any title to the same.
3. Five issues were framed by the Trial Court. The parties adduced evidence. The mother of the defendant was alive when the oral evidence was going on. The mother of the defendant died on September 12, 1992 and the oral evidence of the suit concluded on September 4, 1992. The mother of the defendant was not called as a witness by the defendant to establish his parentage. This was commented upon by the Trial Court.
4. On consideration of the rival contentions and the evidence led, the Trial Court found the defendant not to be in possession of the suit properties. The Trial Court also did not find the defendant to be the son of the Gunadhar Mali and Gayamoni. The Trial Court found that Gayamoni was the only valuable witness to establish the parentage of the defendant. Her non-examination proved fatal for the case of the defendant before the Trial Court. The Trial Court found the plaintiff to have established title to the land. The Trial Court proceeded to decree the suit in favour of the plaintiff. The defendant was permanently restrained from causing any trouble to the peaceful enjoyment of the suit property by the plaintiff.
5. The Appeal Court, erroneously, held that the judgment of the Trial Court was on the basis of the Records of Rights published
