Back
2000 Supreme(Gau) 75
GAUHATI HIGH COURT
J.N.Sarma, J.
Hilen Loyi -Appellant
Versus
Nyamo Kamduk -Respondent
First Appeal No. 29 of 1995
Decided On : 23-02-2000
S.Kataki, C.Barua
The judgment emphasizes the importance of documentary evidence, money receipts, and witnesses in establishing the purchase of property, as well as the application of traditional laws governing joint family property.
Headnote:
Joint Family Property - Land Dispute - [Transfer of Property Act, Indian Evidence Act, Indian Majority Act] - The court decreed the suit of the plaintiff, declaring the disputed land as joint family property and ordering the defendant to hand over peaceful possession to the joint family. The court relied on the absence of documentary evidence of purchase, failure to produce money receipts, and the absence of witnesses to the sale agreement. The court also considered the age of the seller and the traditional law governing the sale of joint family property.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of title and ejectment, claiming that the land belonged to the joint family and that the defendant forcefully occupied the premises. The defendant claimed to have purchased the land and received a grant from the Government for its improvement.
Finding of the Court:
The court found in favor of the plaintiff, declaring the disputed land as joint family property and ordering the defendant to hand over peaceful possession to the joint family.
Issues: 1. Ownership of the land 2. Purchase of the land by the defendant 3. Retained possession by the defendant 4. Forceful occupation by the defendant
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the absence of documentary evidence of purchase, failure to produce money receipts, and the absence of witnesses to the sale agreement. The court also considered the age of the seller and the traditional law governing the sale of joint family property.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the parties were left to bear their own costs.
2. I have heard Shri S. Kataky, learned Advocate for the appellant and Shri C. Baruah, learned Advocate for the respondent-plaintiff. The plaintiff brought a suit being Title Suit No. 2 of 1983 before the Deputy Commissioner, Siang District, Arunachal Pradesh. The suit was for declaration of title and ejectment and for recovery of possession by ejecting the defendant.
3. The case of the plaintiff was that this land belonged to the plaintiff and the defendant in the year 1974 taking the advantage of the temporary absence of the plaintiff and other members of the family kidnapped the caretaker of the premises and forcibly occupied the premises and that thereafter there was a demand by the plaintiff for giving up the land. But nothing was done. Thereafter a Kebang was held, but the Kebang failed to do anything. The defendant filed a written statement. His case is that he is "the lawful owner of the land and he further claimed that the original land belonged to one lumyam Kamduk and in the year 1970 he sold the land to the defendant for a sum of Rs. 700 and delivered possession to the defendant. His further case is that Tumyam Kamduk had executed a deed in favour of the defendant but that the said deed was destroyed in 1977 when a disastrous fire burnt down the Pakam village. His case was that this deed was written by one Hengo Lollen and Moken Ete was also present. It is the case of the defendant that he also got grant from the Govt of Arunachal Pradesh under the Crash Programme for the improvement of the land and the subsidy money was paid for opening the WRC field. It was the further case of the defendant that the plaintiff is not only owner of the land. The land belonged to joint family. The following issues were framed:
I. Whether the land belongs to the plaintiffs?
II. Whether the defendant had purchased the suit premises from its lawful owner?
III. Whether defendant had been retained possession of the suit premises at the time of filing of the suit.
IV. Whether the defendant has forcefully occupied the suit premises?
Following are the witnesses examined on behalf of the parties. PW1 Nyamo Kamduk (plaintiff). He deposed inter alia, as follows:
(a) The land belongs to our joint family.
(b) The joint family property can not be sold individually.
(c) Tumyam Kamduk was born in 1960 and in the year 1970 his age was around l0 years.
(d) Tumyam Kamduk can not sell the joint family property being the youngest member of the family aged about 10 years only in the year 1970.
(e) In the Kebang the defendant stated that he has purchased the, land from Tumyam Kamduk. But he did not produce any money receipt, documents or witness.
(f) In 1968 we gave a notice to the effect that nobody should purchase any property from Tumyam Tumjum and Dakar without obtaining consent from me or my father.
This witness exhibited the following documents:
PEX I, the Power of Attorney.
PEX II, the dale of the birth certificate issued by the Head Teacher of Govt Primary School, Pakam.
PEX III, the circular given by the plaintiff to the Pis and GBs.
In 1977 of the Kebang which as held the defendant did not say that the document of sale was burnt in fire. PW 2, Tapang Taki. He deposed, inter alia, as follows : In the Kebang Hillem Loyi stated that he purchased the disputed land from Tumyam Kamduk. The defendant did not produce any money receipt as a token of proof. In the Kebang we felt that as per Adi custom joint family property cannot be sold by an individual and it would be better to restore the joint family. We told as per traditional law property cannot be purchased from old woman and children. There was no any decision in Kebang of 1975. On the compl
