Back
Manipur High Court
C. JAGANNADHACHARYULU, J.
Nar Bahadur Gurung
Versus
Anil Krishna Bhattacharya
First Civil Appeal Case No.1 of 1965
Decided On : 03-03-1969
LAND TENURE - RELINQUISHMENT OF LAND - ADVERSE POSSESSION - SALE DEED - MUTATION OF LAND RECORDS - DECLARATORY RELIEF - RES JUDICATA - CONSTRUCTIVE RES JUDICATA - ORDER XXIII, RULE 1, SUB-RULE (3), CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants, claiming to be tenants of the original pattadars, Hafiz Fateh Shah and Hafiz Sheriff Shah, filed a suit for declaration of their full title to the suit land and for a declaration that the registered sale deed executed by the fifth defendant in favor of the respondents 1 to 4 and their mother and the mutation of the suit land in their names are void. The appellants alleged that the original pattadars granted the suit land to their ancestors on condition that the suit land would revert to them and their ancestors as owners of the land occupied by each of them, in case of relinquishment of the suit land by Hafiz brothers and their heirs. The appellants claimed that the suit land was relinquished by the heirs of Hafiz Sheriff Shah and that they had perfected their title to the suit land by adverse possession.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellants' claim of relinquishment of the suit land by the heirs of Hafiz Sheriff Shah was not supported by evidence and was barred by constructive res judicata and Order XXIII, Rule 1, sub-rule (3), Civil Procedure Code, 1908. The court also found that the appellants' claim of perfecting their title to the suit land by adverse possession was not supported by evidence. The court further found that the registered sale deed executed by the deceased fifth defendant in favor of the respondents 1 to 4 and their mother was not valid as the fifth defendant had no authority to execute the same. The court also found that the mutation of the suit land in the names of the respondents 1 to 4 and their mother was not valid as it was based on the invalid sale deed. The court held that the appellants were entitled to a declaration that they were the tenants of the suit land, but dismissed their suit for the other reliefs claimed.
Issues: (i) Whether the claim of the appellants, that they acquired title to the suit land on account of its alleged relinquishment by the heirs of Hafiz Sheriff Shah is true and is barred by the provisions of Section 11 and Order XXIII, Rule 1, sub-rule (3) C.P.C.? (ii) Whether the claim of the appellants that they perfected their title to the suit land by adverse possession is true and valid? (iii) Whether the registered sale deed dated 10-7-1953 executed by the deceased fifth defendant in favour of the respondents 1 to 4 and their mother is true and valid? (iv) Whether the mutation of the suit-land in the names of the respondents 1 to 4 and their mother effected by the orders of the Deputy Commissioner dated 22-7-54 in mutation case No. 305 of 1954 is liable to be set aside and whether the names of the appellants have to be mutated in their place? (v) To what relief are the parties entitled?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The claim of relinquishment of the suit land by the heirs of Hafiz Sheriff Shah was not supported by evidence and was barred by constructive res judicata and Order XXIII, Rule 1, sub-rule (3), Civil Procedure Code, 1908. 2. The claim of perfecting title to the suit land by adverse possession was not supported by evidence. 3. The registered sale deed executed by the deceased fifth defendant in favor of the respondents 1 to 4 and their mother was not valid as the fifth defendant had no authority to execute the same. 4. The mutation of the suit land in the names of the respondents 1 to 4 and their mother was not valid as it was based on the invalid sale deed. 5. The appellants were entitled to a declaration that they were the tenants of the suit land.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed with costs.
This is an appeal filed by the plaintiff in Title Suit No. 3 of 1961 on the file of the Sub-Judge I, Imphal against his judgment and decree dated 22-1-1965 declaring that the appellants and the persons mentioned in the plaint A schedule, represented by the appellants under Order 1, Rule 8, Civil P. C., are the actual tenants of the plaint schedule land of about 70 paris (about 175 acres) situate in Pangei and dismissing their suit for declaration of their full title to the suit land and for the further declaration that the registered sale deed dated 10-7-1953 executed by late Chand Khan the fifth defendant in the suit in favour of the respondents 1 to 4 and their mother Santi Devi and the mutation of the suit land in their names are void.
2. The case of the appellants briefly stated is thus: When the British Government took over Manipur State after the rebellion of 1891, the former granted the plaint schedule land of about 70 Paris situate in Pangei village to one Hafiz Fateh Shah and his brother Sheriff Shah in recognition of their services rendered during the rebellion. The land was mutated in their names. Hafiz Fateh Shah and Sheriff Shah belonged to West Punjab (now in West Pakistan). They engaged the ancestors of the appellants to reclaim the suit land on condition that the suit land would revert to them and their ancestors as owners of the land, occupied by each of them, in case of relinquishment of the suit land by Hafiz brothers and their heirs.
3. The appellants ancestors reclaimed the suit land at great expense. They paid lousals (rents) upto 1947 to the original owners of the suit land.
4. Hafiz Fateh Shah died issueless many years back. Hafiz Sheriff Shah died in 1929. After their death, their heirs used to realize rents for the suit land by coming to Manipur occasionally till Pakistan was separated from India in 1947. After 1947 the heirs of Hafiz brothers, if any, took no interest in the suit land. Nor did they make any attempt to get the suit land mutated in their names or to realize rents.
5. The Manipur State Council passed a resolution No. 13 of 1949 dated 7-9-1949 to cancel the patta standing in the name of Hafiz Sheriff Shah for land in excess of 10 paris, since, according to the customary law prevailing in Manipur, no person could possess more than 10 paris of land. (Vide Ext. A/1). Notices to show cause why the patta should not be cancelled were issued to the parties concerned and the patta for the excess land was cancelled.
6. The then Chief Commissioner Shri Himmat Singh Maheswari passed an order on 2-11-1950 directing the S. D. C. to take over the excess land (Vide Ext. A/2). Under the directions of the Manipur Government, the Deputy Commissioner was taking steps for its disposal. But, in the meanwhile the third respondent Benoy Krishna Bhattacharya appeared on the scene and moved the Government for mutation of all the lands in the names of the respondents 1 to 4 and their mother Late Shanti Devi on the plea that they had acquired the suit land in exchange of their own lands in East Pakistan with the heirs of Hafiz Sheriff Shah. But, the Government rejected his claim in mutation case No. 1049 of 1953 and this fact was communicated to the appellants under the orders of the S. D. C., I. E. T. dated 8-10-1953 in Misc. Case No. 391 of 1953. (Vide Ext. A/8).
7. But, later on the Government of Manipur changed its attitude and ordered under letter No. R/4/52 dated 24-5-1952 that it was not fair not to recognise the title of Hafiz Sheriff Shah and his heirs to the land and to confiscate it. The holders of the pattas or their legal heirs were allowed to dispose of their lands to the actual tenants. Under the said letter of the Government of Manipur the Deputy Commissioner ordered the appellants, who were the actual tenants, to pay a sum of Rs. 60,000/- towards the price of the suit land. But, as the appellants were very poor, they could not pay such a large sum. The deceased fifth defendant Chand Khan posed
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
