Back
2015 Supreme(Gau) 863
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
A.K. GOSWAMI, J.
Sri Tapan Chakraborty - Appellants
Versus
Sri Biman Roy – Respondent
RSA No. 132 of 2010
Decided On : 14.10.2015
For the Appellants :Mr. H. Das, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. M. U. Mondal, Advocate
The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of adverse possession laws, specifically the requirements for claiming possessory title over government land.
Headnote:
Adverse Possession - Land Dispute - [Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Section 34, Limitation Act, 1963 - Section 27] - The court discussed the plaintiff's claim for possessory title over the government land by adverse possession. The key legal provisions of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Section 34 and the Limitation Act, 1963 - Section 27 were interpreted to determine the validity of the plaintiff's claim. The court upheld the lower courts' findings of possession in favor of the plaintiff based on the evidence presented.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff claimed possessory title over a government land by adverse possession. The defendants trespassed into the land and sought to construct a club house, leading to a legal dispute.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the plaintiff and his father were in possession of the land and upheld the lower courts' decision to grant possessory title to the plaintiff, subject to the paramount title of the State Government.
Issues: The issues included the validity of the plaintiff's claim for possessory title, the sufficiency of evidence regarding possession, and the impact of the plaintiff's absence on the possession of the land.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the plaintiff's continuous possession of the land, supported by witness testimony, justified the grant of possessory title by adverse possession.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the substantial questions of law were answered against the appellants.
1. Heard Mr. H. Das, learned counsel for the appellants/defendants. Also heard Mr. M. U. Mondal, learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiff.
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 23.12.2009 passed by the learned District Judge, Goalpara, in Title Appeal No. 3/2003 dismissing the appeal and upholding the judgment and decree dated 08.08.2003, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Goalpara, in Title Suit No. 5/2001.
3. The Second Appeal was admitted for hearing on 20.09.2010 on the following substantial question of law:
“Whether the suit of the plaintiff for declaration of right, title and interest by adverse possession over the Government land is maintainable in the absence of the State of Assam as a party defendant?”
4. Subsequently, noticing that by a petition dated 29.07.2003 the plaintiff had prayed for deletion of the prayer made at paragraph (a) to the plaint pertaining to a declaration that the plaintiff had acquired valid title of the suit land by adverse possession and that the same was allowed by the learned trial court by order dated 29.07.2003, it was opined that the substantial question of law, formulated by the order dated 20.09.2010, may not determine the fate of the appeal and, accordingly, by an order dated 20.03.2015, following two substantial questions of law were framed:
“1. Whether the courts below erred in law in decreeing the suit by declaring possessory title in favour of the respondent/plaintiff when such ground had neither been pleaded nor framed as an issue?
2. Whether the findings and decision of the courts below have suffered perversity on account of substantial question No. 1?”
5. The case of the plaintiff is that the suit land is a khas land and the plaintiff’s father is possessing the same from the year 1969 openly and continuously and, subsequently, he handed over the possession of the same to the plaintiff and, thus, the plaintiff and his father are possessing the suit land adverse to the knowledge of the defendants and others including the State of Assam. A residential house was also sought to be constructed and construction had also been raised to the level of the plinth, but, subsequently, due to financial stringency, the construction could not be completed. Municipal Holding was also accorded in the name of the plaintiff. Taking advantage of the plaintiff’s absence, as he is serving outside Goalpara, where the suit land is located, the defendants trespassed into the suit land in the 3rd week of February, 2001, and sought to raise a boundary wall on the northern side of the suit land beyond which father of the plaintiff has a plot of land which had been allotted to him by the government. The defendants and their friends and companions threatened the plaintiff and sought to occupy the suit land by constructing a club house in the name of Juba Jyoti Sangha. It was asserted that due to adverse possession, the plaintiff had acquired valid right, title and interest over the aforesaid suit land and also he has the right to possess and enjoy the same.
6. In the suit, the following prayers were made:
“(a) For a declaration that the plaintiff has acquired valid title to the suit land by adverse possession.
(b) For a declaration that the plaintiff has right to possess and enjoy the suit land.
(c) For permanent and temporary injunction restraining the defendants and their companions, agents etc. from entering into the suit land and from raising any structures, buildings, walls etc. on it.
(d) For a decree of khas possession of the suit land by evicting the defendants and their companions, agents etc. therefrom if during the pendency of the suit the plaintiff is dispossessed from the suit land by the defendants.
(e) For costs and other reliefs to which the plaintiff is entitled to under law and equity.”
7. As noticed above, prayer (a) in the plaint stood deleted by way of amendment.
8. Defendant No. 1 filed written statement stating that the plaintiff
