Back
GAUHATI HIGH COURT
K. M. LAHIRI AND N. I. SINGH, JJ.
Sailala -Appellant
Versus
Ngurtaiveli -Respondent
Civil Revn. No. 7(H) of 1978
Decided On : 12-02-1980
ESTOPPEL BY ACQUIESCENCE - OWNERSHIP OF PROPERTY - CONDUCT OF PARTY - INFERENCE OF OWNERSHIP - ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY - NO OBJECTION CERTIFICATE - IMPLIED RECOGNITION OF OWNERSHIP - REVISION OF JUDGEMENT - POWER OF HIGH COURT - RE-APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE - LEGAL INFIRMITY - NATURAL JUSTICE - SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE.
Fact of the Case:
Dispute over ownership of a house and compound between brother and sister. Plaintiff claimed ownership through a sale deed from her husband's son, while defendant claimed ownership through his father, who was the village chief. The trial court found no clear proof of ownership for either party, while the appellate court found in favor of the plaintiff.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court found that the appellate court's finding was supported by the evidence on record. It noted that the plaintiff's husband was buried in the compound, that the plaintiff had reoccupied the house after the sale, and that the defendant had obtained a "no objection certificate" from the plaintiff when his adjacent garden was acquired by the government.
Issues: 1. Whether the appellate court erred in finding that the plaintiff was the owner of the suit premises. 2. Whether the defendant was estopped from claiming ownership by acquiescence. 3. Whether the trial court erred in not formally impleading the defendant's brother as a party.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The High Court held that the appellate court's finding was supported by the evidence on record and that there was no legal infirmity in the proceedings. 2. The High Court held that the defendant was estopped from claiming ownership by acquiescence, as he had stood by and allowed the plaintiff to deal with the property as if she were the owner. 3. The High Court held that the trial court's failure to formally implead the defendant's brother as a party did not result in a failure of justice, as the brother had filed a written statement and had stated that he had no claim over the suit premises.
Final Decision: The High Court dismissed the revision petition and upheld the appellate court's judgment, with the modification that the compensation for the acquisition of the approach road through the suit premises should be paid to the plaintiff.
SINGH, J. :- This is a Revision under Cl.6 of the Assam High Court (Jurisdiction Over District Council Courts) Order, 1954, directed against the judgement and order of the District Council Court, Aizawl, reversing the judgement and order of the Magistrate, Subordinate District Council Court, Aizawl. The revision is filed by the defendant, Sailala, the petitioner herein, against the plaintiff Smt. Ngurtaiveli, Opposite Party.
2. The dispute is about the ownership of a house and its compound in the northern side of Chaltlang filed between brother and sister. One Thangphunga, Chief of Chaltlang village, died sometime in 1951, leaving behind him his daughter Smt. Ngurtaiveli, opposite party, by his first wife and two sons Sailala, petitioner, and Lalengmawia, by the second wife married after the death of his first wile. Smt. Ngurtaivelis husband, R.D. Leta died on 12-4-25 leaving behind a son, Sri Lalsikula, by another wife. It is the case of the plaintiff-opposite party that the disputed house belonged to her husband, Late R.D. Leta. After the death of her husband, she lived in the house; but she was forced to leave it in the last part of 1927, being driven out by Smt. Tauhhnuali, younger sister of her husband and Sri Lalsikula, claiming that Lalsikula was the rightful owner of the suit premises as heir to his father, R.D. Leta, under the Mizo Customary law of inheritance. Lalsikula was then aged about 16 years, and money was needed for his educational expenses. Later on, at the intervention of Makthanga, Chief of Rashimveng, Aizawl, who was regarded as the brother of R.D. Leta, an agreement was arrived at between them on 13-4-28, under which the suit house was sold to the opposite party at Rs. 500.00. It was reduced into writing marked, Ext. 2. The opposite party thereafter reoccupied the suit house. Her father Thangphunga came to know later on the treatment meted out to her and the transaction between them, but he raised no objection to it.
It is further the case of the plaintiff-opposite party that her father, Thangphunga, lived in the main village Sehlawh while a Chief and Chaltlang was his sub-village. Sailala, the petitioner, while a young boy lived with her at Chaltlang in the disputed house studying in school. When Sailala joined Government service as a Circle Interpreter, he also lived in the suit house with her. After he had succeeded his father as a Chief in 1944, he lived at Sehlawh village. Chiefship was abolished in 1953, and with the compensation money, he built a house of his own at Bawngkawn, where he had shifted. While he was living with her, he owned a big garden adjacent to the suit land, which had been acquired subsequently by Government for construction of a Tourist Lodge. The petitioner, obtained from her "no objection certificate" as an adjacent owner at the time of the acquisition, evidencing thereby her title to the suit premises. It was further averred that the petitioners brother Lalengmawia occupied the suit premises and ill-treated her, forcing her to live with her sister in another compound. The petitioner and his brother in assertion of title to the suit premises managed them to get the same mutated in the name of the petitioner by converting it into patta land. Hence, the present compliant filed by Smt. Ngurtaiveli, the opposite party, before the Magistrate, Subordinate District Council Court, Aizawal, claiming declaration of her title to the suit premises as an owner and eviction of Lalengmawia therefrom. The case was registered as Misc. Case No. 48 of 1975.
3. The case of the defendant-petitioner was that the suit house and the compound belonged to his father, Thangphunga, and that the suit house was constructed by the community labour of the villagers according to the Mizo customs. Late R.D. Leta and his sister were allowed to live in the said house. Late R.D. Leta as his son-in-law contributed a little amount towards the construction. It was further pleaded that his father occupied it as
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
