Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
HARISH TANDON, MADHURESH PRASAD, JJ.
Baharpota Upper Primary School – Appellant
Versus
Santimayee Manna & Ors. – Respondents
SAT 373 of 2018, CAN 1(7306) of 2018
Decided on : 20-05-2024
Property - Inheritance - Specific Relief Act, Limitation Act - The court discussed the provisions of the Specific Relief Act and the Limitation Act, emphasizing the necessity of claiming further reliefs alongside a declaration of title, and the implications of possession and title in property disputes.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs claimed ownership of certain plots inherited from their predecessors, while the defendants asserted rights based on an unregistered sale deed and entries in the Record of Rights. The dispute arose when the defendants attempted to construct on the disputed plots.
Finding of the Court:
The Appellate Court found that the defendants could not prove their title based on the unregistered deed and that the plaintiffs had maintained possession until the defendants' interference. The suit was deemed maintainable despite the defendants' claims of limitation.
Issues: Whether the suit for declaration of title was maintainable without a claim for recovery of possession, and whether the defendants' claims were barred by limitation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that a suit for declaration of title must be accompanied by a claim for further relief, and that mere possession based on an unregistered deed does not confer title. The provisions of the Specific Relief Act and Limitation Act were pivotal in the decision.
Result: The appeal is dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Harish Tandon, J.
1. The dispute pertains to the Plot nos. 1349, 1350 and 1352 which according to the plaintiff/respondent owned and possessed by them by way of inheritance from their predecessors who were admittedly the owners thereof. It is a specific case of the plaintiff/respondent that undisputedly the aforesaid properties belonging to one Indra Manna and Jagannath Manna in equal share and on the death of Jagannath Manna his son Jharu Manna inherited the undivided half share along with his uncle namely Indra Manna. The DSROR was prepared in the name of said Indra Manna and the Jharu Manna. The Indra Manna admittedly died as a bachelor and the Jharu Manna being the only heir under the law intestate succession acquired an exclusive right, title and interest in respect thereof. It is further alleged that after the death of Jharu Manna his three sons namely Sripati, Satish and Ratikanta inherited the suit properties in equal share but subsequently, Satish transferred his undivided 1/3rd share by several deeds in favour of his another brother Ratikanta and correspondingly, the Sripati also transferred his undivided 1/3rd share by several deeds in favour of the said Ratikanta and thus Ratikanta become the exclusive owner of the suit properties. The plaintiffs are admittedly the heirs and successors of the said Ratikanta and instituted a suit for declaration that the defendants have no right, title and interest in respect of the suit premises as the appellant school is situated in a non-suit plot no. 1348 and 1351 and have surreptitiously stack the building material on the suit plot with an intent to raise construction on 28.02.2001.
2. The defendant/appellant admitted that the suit plots originally belong to Indra Manna and Jagannath Manna. On the death of Jagannath Manna it is alleged that the said Indra Manna and Jharu Manna executed a sale-deed in favour of the appellant in the year 1950 in respect of a portion of the aforesaid plot. It is further averred that since the value of the property was below 100, the said sale-deed was not registered. It is further stated that on the basis of the aforesaid fact the RS Record of Right and LR Record of Right contained the entry and since then they are owning and possessing the aforesaid plots. It is further stated that the aforesaid factor would further be corroborated on the basis of the Record of Right prepared in respect of the remaining land comprised in the aforesaid plot numbers and, therefore, the contention of the plaintiff in this regard is untenable.
3. At one hand the plaintiff has sought for a declaration that the entry in the Record of Right is erroneous on the other hand the defendant/appellant is claiming the right, title and interest not only on the basis of an unregistered deed of sale allegedly executed in 1915 but also on the basis of an entry in the RS Record of Right and LR Record of Right. It is pertinent to record that the alleged deed of 1915 as claimed by the defendant/appellant was not produced before the Trial Court for the reason that a defence was taken that the said deed was destroyed in the flood in 1978. The Trial Court proceeded on the basis that since the carved out plot was recorded in the name of the predecessor of the plaintiffs and the several deeds executed amongst the heirs of the said Jagannath is in respect of those carved out plots. It ipso facto leads to an inescapable conclusion that the remaining land which the defendant/appellant alleged to have acquired by way of purchase and on the basis of the RS and LR Record of Right is fully established. It is further observed that the plaintiffs cannot acquire title on the strength of those deeds executed by the brother of the Jagannath Manna as it was restricted to carved out portion of the said plots and, therefore, in absence of the heirs of the other brothers the suit is hit by the non-joinder of the parties. The Trial Court further observed that the suit is hit by Section 34 of the Spe
A suit for declaration of title must include a claim for further relief; possession alone does not establish title, especially when based on unregistered deeds.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the plaintiff was not required to ask for possession when the property was in custodia legis, and the defendants had acquired title by adverse....
A plaint can be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC if it is manifestly vexatious, does not disclose a clear right to sue, and is barred by limitation, particularly when the plaintiff does no....
Property disputes require clear proof of title and possession; without these, claims may be barred by limitation and statutory provisions.
The plaintiffs cannot claim a mere declaration of title without seeking further relief for possession, as stipulated by Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, rendering the suit not maintainable.
In property disputes, once a plaintiff proves title, the burden shifts to the defendant to establish adverse possession; failure to do so results in the plaintiff's claim being upheld.
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
