Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
INDRAJIT CHATTERJEE, J.
Seikh Sahidul and Ors. - Appellants
Versus
Sajahan Sheikh and Ors. - Respondents
S.A. 146 of 2016
Decided On : 22-08-2016
LAND DISPUTE - TITLE AND POSSESSION - C.S.R.O.R. AND L.R.R.O.R. - ADVERSE POSSESSION - LIMITATION ACT - INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction over a suit property, claiming ownership through a registered deed of sale executed in 1941. The defendants, legal heirs of the original owners, contested the plaintiffs' claim, relying on the C.S.R.O.R. and L.R.R.O.R. showing their possession and denying the plaintiffs' exclusive ownership.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the plaintiffs failed to prove their exclusive ownership over the suit property based solely on the 1941 deed. The C.S.R.O.R., prepared before the deed, showed that the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs and his two brothers were recorded as raiyats under the superior landlord. The court interpreted the deed as transferring only the rent-receiving interest, not the entire land, as evidenced by the recital in the deed and the subsequent filing of a rent suit by the plaintiffs' predecessor.
Issues: 1. Whether the plaintiffs acquired title over the suit property through the 1941 deed of sale. 2. Whether the finally published L.R.R.O.R. should be presumed correct in the absence of contrary proof. 3. Whether the plaintiffs' suit was barred by Section 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963, due to adverse possession by the defendants.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court relied on the C.S.R.O.R., prepared prior to the 1941 deed, which showed that the plaintiffs' predecessor-in-interest and his brothers were recorded as raiyats under the superior landlord. This indicated that the predecessor had only rent-receiving interest, which was transferred by the deed, not the entire land. 2. The court acknowledged that the L.R.R.O.R.s were finally published documents indicating possession but not title. However, the mere presence of L.R.R.O.R.s in the names of the plaintiffs was insufficient to establish their title. 3. Since the defendants did not raise any claim of adverse possession in their written statement or additional written statement, the court held that the plaintiffs' suit was not barred by Section 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
Final Decision: The court allowed the second appeal in part. It set aside the judgment of the First Appellate Court, which had reversed the trial court's decision, and modified the trial court's decree. The court declared the plaintiffs and proforma defendants as co-sharers with a 1/3 share in the suit property, based on the C.S.R.O.R. showing their predecessors' possession. The court also set aside the trial court's decree for permanent and mandatory injunctions, as the land had not been partitioned.
Indrajit Chatterjee, J.
1. This court is hearing this appeal as against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track, 4th Court, Krishnanagar, District: Nadia as passed on 4th April, 2008 in Title Appeal No. 76 of 2005 wherein the learned Court of First Appellate was pleased to allow the appeal on contest and set aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Nabadwip, District: Nadia, in connection with Title Suit No. 45 of 1997 on 31st January, 2005.
2. Let me start with the fact on which the parties fought the legal battle before the Trial Court.
3. The case was filed on 15th July, 1997 before that court at Nabadwip and originally, it was a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction. On 15th of March, 1998, the plaint was amended to incorporate therein the story of dispossession to the extent of 17 decimal out of 44 decimal and prayer was also made for recovery of Khas possession and for mandatory injunction. This may be treated as the prelude.
4. The plaintiffs came up with the case that the suit property originally belong to Santosh Kumar Chatterjee and he sold the suit property to Uchhap Sheikh, i.e. the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs and the proforma defendant Nos. 13 to 26 as per registered deed of sale dated 14-11-1941. The plaintiffs claimed that since purchase, Uchhap was in exclusive possession of the suit property till his death. The plaintiffs admitted that Uchhap has two brothers, namely, Abdul Joban and Abdul Khabir who used to reside in separate Mess from Uchhap. The plaintiffs also claimed before the learned Trial Court that the C.S. R.O.R was wrongly prepared in the names of Uchhap Sheikh, Abdul Joban and Abdul Khabir. It was also the case of the plaintiffs that the entries of the R.S.R.O.R. in respect of the suit property as regards the story of dispossession as per one amicable settlement is wrong. This court has been appraised by the appellants that the L.R. R.O.R of the suit property has been recorded in the names of the plaintiffs and the proforma defendants.
5. Thus, the plaintiffs before the Trial Court claimed that they have good title over the suit property along with proforma defendants referred to above which they inherited from Uchhap Sheikh.
6. The defendants, being the legal heirs of Abdul Joban and Abdul Khabir, claimed that actually C.S. R.O.R. was rightly prepared taking into consideration the possession of those three brothers, I repeat Uchhap Sheikh, Abdul Joban and Abdul Khabir. The defendants claimed that all these three brothers were the joint owners of the suit property and Uchhap never acquired any title by way of that deed of 1941 executed by Santosh Kumar Chatterjee nee Chattopadhyay. Regarding this, the defendants claimed in paragraph-11 of the W/S that Santosh was the son of Tara Sankar Chatterjee who had only intermediate interest over the said Khatiyan and thus, he had only rent receiving interest in the suit property and actual possession was with the Raiyats and the deed will show that only the rent receiving interest was transferred to Uchhap as per that deed of 1941. They further claimed that by virtue of this deed, they cannot negate the presumption of the two finally published record of rights, i.e. C.S.R.O.R and R.S.R.O.R. The defendants also claimed that Uchhap with the help of his son, who was an influential employee of the Estate of Ranajit Pal Chowdhury, got the R.S. record manipulated and the story of amicable partition was recorded in that R.S. R.O.R. They also claimed that Tara Sankar Chatterjee had other co-sharers in respect of the said Khatiyan No. 390 and as such, he had no exclusive saleable right over the property.
7. In the additional written statement, these defendants claimed that value of the suit property was at least 1 lakh and the said Trial Court had no pecuniary jurisdiction to try the suit. It was also claimed that the suit is barred under Sections 6
AI
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
