Chandra Devi Bothra vs State of West Bengal

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(Cal) 1227

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
SUGATO MAJUMDAR, J.
Chandra Devi Bothra and Others – Plaintiffs
Versus
The State of West Bengal – Defendants
CS No. 191 of 1997
Decided On : 13-06-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Plaintiffs : Joyjit Ganguly, Pradeep Sancheti, Varun Kothari.
For the Defendants : Malay Kr. Ghosh, Subhasish Sengupta, P.K. Nandi, S. De, Noelle Banerjee, Shourya Samanta.

Headnote:(A) Calcutta Thika Tenancy (Acquisition & Regulation) Act, 1981 - Sections 21 and 23 - Suit for declaration of title, recovery of possession, and mesne profits - Plaintiffs claim ownership of suit property purchased from trust beneficiary, argue property not vested in State - Defendants assert suit barred by limitation and jurisdiction due to the Act - Court finds thika tenant status and vesting claims unsubstantiated and rules in favor of Plaintiffs' claim of ownership - Court determines jurisdiction is not barred and suit is maintainable. (Paras 1, 12, 22, 72)

(B) Limitation - Court addresses arguments on limitation, determining Plaintiffs' claim for possession is timely based on clear evidence of previous ownership and tenancy termination. (Paras 34, 88)

Facts of the case:
The Plaintiffs acquired property from a trust beneficiary, asserting ownership against claims of thika tenancy by Defendant No. 3. Previous disputes culminated in a suit dismissing earlier ejectment claims for non-prosecution. (Paras 2, 5, 11)

Findings of Court:
The Plaintiffs hold rightful title to the property. The claim of thika tenancy by Defendant No. 3 is dismissed, affirming no vesting under relevant statutes. (Paras 91, 92)

Issues: The main issues involved jurisdiction relative to the thika tenancy laws, maintainability of the suit within limits of the law, and rightful determination of ownership. (Paras 12, 70)

Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the earlier dispute’s dismissal does not preclude claims of title; jurisdiction remains intact for declarations of ownership; the assertion of thika tenancy was insufficient without proper evidentiary support. (Paras 84, 88)

Result: Suit partly allowed; Plaintiffs recognized as owners of the property with other prayers, including possession and mesne profits, denied.

Table of Content
1. background of property rights and historical leases. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. defendants' legal defenses and claims against the suit. (Para 7 , 8)
3. issues framed for court determination. (Para 11 , 12)
4. examination of the suit's maintainability and jurisdiction. (Para 13 , 14 , 15)
5. debate on legislative amendments and impact on the current suit. (Para 16 , 17 , 18)
6. outcome of discussions on jurisdictional authority. (Para 19 , 20 , 21)
7. limitation claims and implications for the suit. (Para 34 , 36 , 37 , 38)
8. legal definitions and implications surrounding thika tenancy. (Para 61 , 62 , 63)
9. examination of tenant status and rights. (Para 73 , 74 , 75)
10. summary verdict and orders of the court. (Para 88 , 89 , 90)

JUDGMENT :

SUGATO MAJUMDAR, J.

1. This is a suit for declaration, recovery of possession, mesne profits and other reliefs.

2. The nutshell of the plaint case is that one Nagendra Nath Sett, by an indenture of trust dated 12/03/1946 created a trust estate appointing his wife Kshetramani Dassi as one of the trustees. The said Kshetramani Dassi, since deceased, executed a registered deed of lease on 11/10/1966 commencing on and from 01/09/1966 for a period of nine years at a monthly rent, in favor of the Defendant No. 3, a partnership firm. This lease was executed in respect of a piece and parcel of land admeasuring 6 cottahs 9 chittacks 31 sq. ft. with structures standing thereon situated at 45, Chittaranjan Avenue, Kolkata (“the suit property” in short). This tenancy became subject matter of Ejectment Suit No. 806 of 1976 instituted in the City Civil and Sessions Court of Calcutta.

3. The original Plaintiffs purchased the suit property from one of the beneficiaries of the aforesaid trust Dhirendra Nath Sett, by a registered deed of sale dated 18/07/1981. Thereafter, the original Plaintiffs were arrayed as defendants in the aforesaid pending suit. The suit was ultimately dismissed for non- prosecution on 22/03/1991.

4. The Defendant No. 1 is the State of West Bengal and the Defendant No. 2 is the Thika Controller. Sometime immediately before 20/01/1995 the Defendant No. 1 and the Defendant No. 2 declared that the Defendant No. 1, being the State of West Bengal, became the owner of the suit property by way of vesting under the provisions of the Calcutta Thika and Other Tenancies and Lands (Acquisition & Regulation) Act, 1981 (in short, “the Act of 1981”). The Defendant No. 3 was recognized as a thika tenant. The Defendant No. 3 approached the Calcutta Municipal Corporation to recognize and record the Defendant No. 3 as thika tenant. The Calcutta Municipal Corporation issued a notice to the original Plaintiffs bearing number A/XIV/94 dated 20/01/1995 stating that the Defendant No. 3 had applied for recording name as a thika tenant on the strength of some challans issued by the Defendant No. 2 in favor of the Defendant No. 3. In a reply letter dated 15/05/1995, the original Plaintiffs denied any right of the Defendant No. 3 as thika tenant. Despite the same, the Calcutta Municipal Corporation recorded the name of the Defendant No. 3 as a thika tenant. Against this, the original Plaintiffs preferred a writ petition before the Calcutta High Court where interim relief was granted. In appeal, the Division Bench set aside the order passed by the Calcutta Municipal Corporation and directed that the parties should get their respective titles decided by appropriate forum. This order was passed on 03/10/1996.

5. It is further averred in the plaint that since the defendants jointly and severally purported to deny the right, title and interest of the original Plaintiffs by setting up adverse title, the original Plaintiffs determined the tenancy of the Defendant No. 3 in terms of a notice dated 12/03/1997 and called upon the Defendant No. 3 to vacate and hand over peaceful possession of the suit premises to the original Plaintiffs on expiry of the month of the April, 1997. Since the Defendant No. 3 neglected an