Back
2012 Supreme(Chh) 128
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
N.K. Agarwal, J.
DEVIDMATI & OTHERS - Appellants
Vs.
SHYAMKALI & OTHERS - Respondents
F.A. No. 194 of 1997
Decided on: 11-5-2012
Advocate Appeared:
Shri Rajeev Shrivastava, Advocate, for the Appellants.
Shri K.A. Ansari, Senior Advocate with Shri Devesh Kela, Advocate, for the Respondents No. 1(A), 1(B), 2(A) to (C) to 11.
Possession alone decides when there is no title in either party, and prior peaceful settled possession is evidence of title.
Headnote:
C.P.C. - Civil Procedure - Section 96 - 64 of the Limitation Act - [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23] - The court discussed the ownership and possession of the suit property, the validity of sale deeds, and the legal principles of settled possession, title, and prior possession. The court held that possession alone decides when there is no title in either party, and prior peaceful settled possession is evidence of title. The court also emphasized the importance of pleadings and held that evidence beyond the pleadings would not be admissible. The court allowed the appeal in part, set aside the trial court's judgment, and decreed possession in favor of appellant No.1.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs filed a suit seeking declaration of title and possession of the suit property. The trial court dismissed the suit, leading to this appeal.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that late Matidas was in settled possession of the suit property and was dispossessed by the defendants. The sale deeds executed by the plaintiffs were held to be illegal and did not confer any title. The court decreed possession in favor of appellant No.1 based on prior peaceful settled possession.
Issues: The ownership and possession of the suit property, validity of sale deeds, and whether the trial court erred in dismissing the plaintiffs' suit.
Ratio Decidendi: Possession alone decides when there is no title in either party, and prior peaceful settled possession is evidence of title. Evidence beyond the pleadings would not be admissible.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed in part, the trial court's judgment was set aside, and possession was decreed in favor of appellant No.1.
1. This is plaintiffs' first appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for brevity 'the C.P.C.') against the judgment and decree dated 27.01.1997 passed in Civil Suit No. 33-A/1981 by the 2nd Additional District Judge to the Court of District Judge, Bilaspur dismissing the plaintiffs' suit.
2. Facts of the case, in brief, are as under:-
(i) A suit seeking relief of declaration of title and possession of the suit property comprising land bearing Kh.No.492/1 area 0.12 decimals and Kh.No.492/2 area. 0.10 decimals and house constructed thereupon was filed by Davidmati Das arid Ku. Elizabeth, i.e., son and daughter of late Matidas.
(ii) During the pendency of the suit, pursuant to execution of sale deeds (Ex.P.1 & P.2) in favour of Laxmi Devi, Sadri Prasad Gupta and Rajendra Kumar Gupta by plaintiff No. 1 and late Ku. Elizabeth, their names were added as plaintiffs No.2, 3 and 4 and name of Ku. Elizabeth was deleted due to her death.
(iii) According to the plaint averments, Matidas had purchased the suit property from Ludku and his brothers, in the year 1933 and constructed the suit house thereupon and since then he along with Davidmati Das and Ku. Elizabeth was in possession of the suit property till his death, in his own right. Matidas had died on 12.05.1981. After his death, Davidmati Das and Ku. Elizabeth continued in possession of the suit property.
(iv) On 17.05.1981, defendants No.5 to 7 forcibly entered into the suit house. The first information report was lodged against the defendants.
(v) The suit property stands recorded in the revenue papers in the name of late Matidas. The defendants have no right or title over the suit property.
(vi) As per the defendants' case, Ludku, Polo and Samaru orally gifted the suit land to Dheerpal, i.e., father of Timothi and Daniel in the year 1935, who constructed a Kachha house over it. Later on, 20 - 22 years back (from the date of filing of written statement), the defendants have constructed a Pakka house over the suit land, consisting of 9 rooms and one well. They themselves borne the expenses and since then they are in possession of the suit property.
(vii) Matidas was living along with his wife and daughter Ku. Elijabeth with his son Davidmati Das at Pali, Tahsil Katghora. Matidas left Pali due to misbehaviour of his son Davidmati Das. He requested defendants to permit him to live in the suit house, which they permitted and due to above permission, Matidas along with his wife and daughter lived in the suit house. Late Elizabeth started living in the house of Sadri Prasad Gupta (?kj cSB xbZ Fkh). Neither Davidmati Das nor late Elizabeth was ever in possession of the suit property.
(viii) Wife of Matidas had died in the year 1970. Matidas had also died on 5.12.1981. Davidmati Das did not come for their last rites. However he came on 13.05.1981 to Takhatpur and started negotiations for selling the suit property to Badri Prasad Gupta.
(ix) Davidmati Das and late Elizabeth have colluded with plaintiffs No.2, 3 & 4 and sold the suit property to them through registered sale deeds, which are totally illegal and do not confer any title on them. The defendants are owners of the suit property and are also in possession of the same.
(x) In criminal case No. 20/1982, Judicial Magistrate Second Class, Bilaspur, vide its judgment dated 27.04.1982 has held, the defendants are living in 4 rooms of the suit house and also using the open land. Therefore, the suit is liable to be dismissed.
(xi) The trial Court framed the following issues :
okn iz’u
1- D;k oknHkwfe o edku erhnkl dh Fkh \
2- D;k oknxzLr tehu [k-ua- 492@1 fMl- rFkk [kljk ua- 492@2 jdck 10 fMlfey rFkk bl ij cus oknhx.k dks muds firk erhnkl ls izkIr gksdj os muds dCts esa pys vk jgs gSa \
3- D;k 12-5-81 dks erhnkl dks e`R;q ds ckn izfr- }kjk oknxzLr edku esa tcju ?kql vk, \
4- D;k vLFkkbZ fu”ks/kkKk ds vkns’k ds ckn izfr- x.k laiw.kZ oknxzLr edku ds voS/k :i ls dCtk dj fy, \
5- D;k okn dk ewY;kadu mfpr :i ls fd;k x;k gS \
6- vU; lgk;rk
