The transfer of annual patta land confers only limited right of user, and any rights acquired expire with the expiry of the lease in favor of the transferor.

This appeal is by the plaintiffs. Appellants filed the suit before the learned Munsiff for recovery of khas possession and confirmation of possession in respect of the land described in Schedule Ka and Kha to the plaint respecti­vely. The suit was dismissed by both the Courts below.

2. At the relevant time the suit land was covered by annual patta and it stood in the name of Sundar Kachari who died in the year 1953 leaving behind 3 sons. Defendant No. 1 who is the elder son of Sundar Kachari sold the entire suit land by registered sale deed, Exhibit 1 to the plaintiffs. According to plaintiffs they were dispossessed by the defendants from part of the suit land, hence this suit. The suit is contested by all the three sons, and execution of the sale deed has also been denied.

3. I have heard Mr. Noor Mohammad, learned counsel for the appellants, none appears for the respondents.

4. Admittedly, the suit land was covered by annual patta and as such the right of transfer of such annual patta land is restricted in view of section 11 of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation.

5. A Division Bench of this Court in Jainur Ali vs. Mt. Chafina Bibi & others, AIR 1951 Assam 20, held that the correct interpretation of section 11 and Rule 1 (c) framed under the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation is that when an annual patta holder purports to transfer his ownership in such land for consideration, the transferee lakes good title to the property subject only to the paramount title of the Government, i. e. to say, if the Government so chooses it may, at the expiry of the period of the annual patta refuse to grant an annual patta to the transferee; that, however, is a matter between the Government and the transferee and not a matter between the transferor and the transferee. According to their Lordships persons holding annual patta can only transfer his limited right of user and on the date of the sale the transferee would acquire only the subsisting title and interest of the transferor. It was however, held that rights thus acquired would, therefore, expire with the expiry of the lease in favour of the transferor.

6. In the present case, admittedly, the annual patta was in the name of tate Sundar Kachari and at the time of sale the annual patta was not issued in the name of the defendant No. 1. Accordingly, the defendant No. 1 has no saleable right as he was not holding any annual patta. That apart, after the death of Sundar Kachari his three sons can be deemed to be the possessor of the annual patta land and as such defendant No. 1 had no right to sale the entire land by the sale deed, Exhibit 1.

7. There is no dispute that after the sale deed was executed, the land was converted to periodic patta in the name of the defendants. Immediately on conversion even if any right was acquired by the plaintiffs in respect of the share of defendant No. 1, the said right extinguished as soon as the Govern­ment granted periodic patta in the name of the defendants.

8. In view of the above position, I am of the opinion that the suit was rightly dismissed by both the Courts below.

In the result, I find no merit in the present appeal and accordingly it is dismissed. No costs.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document