IN THE HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
SAHIDULLAH MUNSHI, J.
Biswanath Chongdar & Ors - Appellant
Vs.
Sudha Ghosh & Ors - Respondent
S A T No. 412 of 2013
Decided on : 14-01-2019
Record-of-Rights - Property Dispute - C.S. and R.S. Record-of-Rights - [Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act] - The court recognized the settled possession of the plaintiffs based on the Record-of-Rights and granted a decree of permanent injunction to protect their possession, despite their failure to prove title. The defendants failed to rebut the presumption of possession under the Record-of-Rights, and the court held that the plaintiffs were entitled to protect their possession under Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs sought declaration and permanent injunction against the defendants, claiming their names were recorded in the L.R. Record-of-Rights for a pond, but the defendants contested the suit, alleging erroneous recording.
Finding of the Court:
The Trial Court dismissed the suit, stating that the plaintiffs failed to prove any right, title, and interest over the property. The Appellate Court reversed this decision, recognizing the plaintiffs' settled possession based on the Record-of-Rights and granted a decree of permanent injunction to protect their possession.
Issues: The issues included the maintainability of the suit, non-joinder of necessary parties, and the entitlement of the plaintiffs to relief as prayed for.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the plaintiffs' settled possession based on the Record-of-Rights should be protected, as the defendants failed to rebut the presumption of possession under the Record-of-Rights.
Final Decision: The appeal failed, and the court granted a decree of permanent injunction in favor of the plaintiffs to protect their possession based on the Record-of-Rights.
SAHIDULLAH MUNSHI, J.
1. This appeal by the defendants is against the judgment and decree dated 8th July, 2013 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Arambagh, in Title Appeal No. 5 of 2012 reversing the judgment and decree dated 17th May, 2012 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Jr. Division, First Court at Arambagh in Title Suit No. 30 of 2007. Title Suit No. 30 of 2007 filed by the plaintiffs Smt. Sudha Ghosh and Smt. Bijola Chongdar against Sri Biswanath Chongdar and 16 others, praying for declaration and permanent injunction.
2. In short the plaintiffs’ case is that their names were recorded in the L.R. Record-of-Rights in respect of the suit land comprised in a pond named ‘Boro Pukur’ originally comprised of 2.06 Acres but the defendants declared that since their names were not so recorded in C.S. and R.S. Record-of-Rights publication of their names in the L.R. Record-of-Rights was wrong and erroneous and have acquired no right and interest for such wrong recording. The plaintiffs made out a case that their predecessors-in-interest were pardahnashin and since they used to reside at their matrimonial home they reposed faith and responsibility of recording their names in the C.S. and R.S. Record-of-Rights on the predecessor-in-interest of the defendants. The said predecessor-in-interest of the defendants fraudulently recorded their names in respect of the entire property. After coming to learn the fact that their predecessors-in-interest were not recorded in the R.S. and C.S Record-of-Rights, the plaintiff got the records rectified in the L.R. Record-of-Rights. As a result the plaintiff sought for declaration and permanent injunction against the defendants. The defendant nos.1 to 7, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 17 contested the suit by filing written statements. The defendant nos. 8 to 10 were proforma defendants and filed written statements supporting the case of the plaintiffs. The defence case of all the defendants is that the L.R. R-O-R was previously recorded in the name of the predecessors-in-interest of defendant nos. 1 to 4 and the defendant nos. 5 to 6 Anil Kr. Chongdar and Bijoy Krishna Chongdar respectively and in the name of the defendant no. 7 in respect of 1/3 share. But later the husband of the plaintiff no. 1, Sri Ajit Kr. Ghosh and brother-in-law of plaintiff no.2 who is the husband of defendant no.9, Abhay Ghosh surreptitiously in connivance with the Settlement Office recorded the names of the predecessor-in-interest of the defendants in the L.R. Record-of-Rights. The defendant nos. 1 to 7 stated that the suit property in dag no. 467 i.e., ‘Boro Pukur’ originally comprised of 2.06 sataks belonged to three brothers Natabar, Mrigendra and Satish in equal share and their names were recorded in the C.S. R-O-R in Khatian No. 138. The defendant nos. 1 to 7 stated that Ramtarak Chongdar @ Tarakchand Chongdar was the predecessor-in-interest of the defendant nos. 1 to 7. During the life time of Natabar his only son Bankim died and thereafter said Natabar transferred 1/3 share in favour of his daughter-in-law Motibala, defendant no.7 vide Deed of Gift and said Mrigendra, Satish and Motibala recorded their names in R.S. and L.R. Record-of-Rights in respect of entire 2.06 sataks of land in dag no. 467 (Boro Pukur). After the death of said Mrigendra his 1/3 share devolved upon his son Bijay and after the death of Satish his share devolved upon his son Ajay. Thereafter, said Ajay, Bijay and Motibala recorded their names in respect of their 1/3 share. On the death of Bijay his 1/3 share devolved upon his two sons i.e. defendant no. 5 and 6. The share of Anil, at his death devolved upon defendant no. 1 to 3 and Motibala transferred her 1/3 share to her daughter Manjusri Ghosh vide registered Deed of Gift dated 3rd April, 1970. The defendant no. 1 to 3 and said Manjusri Ghosh, defendant no. 7 transferred 06 sataks of land at the eastern side of the Boro Pukur at dag no. 467 to Samanta Khanda Paschim Dulepara Sish
Gitabala Dashi @ Gita Rani Dashi Vs. Sri Fatik Ruidas reported in
Mahabir Pandey and Ors. Vs. Sashi Bhusan Dubey and Ors. reported in
Mogilipuvvu Annapurnaiah Vs. Malampati Narasimha Rao and Anr. reported in
Nair Service Society Ltd. Vs. K. C. Alexander reported in
Raja Durga Singh of Solon Vs. Tholu and Ors. reported in
Rame Gowda dead by L.Rs. Vs. Varadappa Naidu dead by L.Rs. and Anr. reported in
Ratan Chand and Ors. Vs. Mori (dead) by L.R.S. and Ors. reported in
Santosh Hazari Vs. Purushottam Tiwari (deceased) by L.R.S reported in
State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. Vs. Star Bone Mill and Fertiliser Company reported in
Union of India and Ors. Vs. Vasavi Cooperative Housing Society Limited and Ors. reported in
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.