Back
2018 Supreme(Gau) 447
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
MIR ALFAZ ALI, J.
BATASHI SUTRADHAR AND OTHERS - Appellant
Versus
NARESH MANDAL AND OTHERS - Respondent
R.S.A. No. 74 of 2009
Decided on : 30-01-2018
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. P. Upadhyay.
For the Respondent: Mr. K. Uddin.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a clear indication of the vendor's subsisting title and intention for a valid sale deed, as emphasized by the court.
Headnote:
Sale Deed - Land Dispute - [Transfer of Property Act, Section 54, Indian Contract Act, Section 17, Specific Relief Act, Section 34] - The court discussed the validity of a sale deed for the transfer of ownership of land, focusing on the discrepancy in the description of the boundary in the schedule of the sale deed and the vendor's subsisting title over the land. The court emphasized the importance of the vendor's intention and the need for a clear indication of subsisting title for a valid sale deed. The court referred to legal principles from Narayanan -Vs- Kumaran & Ors. and Jayadeb Swain-VS- Santha Behera & Ors. to support its decision.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a dispute over the ownership of land covered by two Dags and a Periodic Patta. The plaintiffs claimed to have purchased the land from the original owner, while the defendants disputed the validity of the sale deed due to the vendor's lack of subsisting title over the land.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the vendor did not have subsisting title over the land at the time of executing the sale deed, rendering it illegal and void. The court emphasized the importance of the vendor's intention and the need for a clear indication of subsisting title for a valid sale deed.
Issues: The main issues included the cause of action for the suit, the maintainability of the suit, the right, title, interest, and possession of the plaintiffs over the land, and the entitlement of the plaintiffs to relief or reliefs.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the vendor's lack of subsisting title over the land at the time of executing the sale deed, emphasizing the importance of the vendor's intention and the need for a clear indication of subsisting title for a valid sale deed.
Final Decision: The second appeal was found without merit and dismissed, with reference to the lack of subsisting title for the vendor and the invalidity of the sale deed.
1. This second appeal by the plaintiffs is directed against the judgment and decree dated 08/05/2008 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Barpeta in T.A. No. 42/2006 reversing the judgment and decree dated 21/08/2006 passed by learned Munsiff No. 2 in Title Suit No. 29/1997 and partly decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs.
2. The facts leading to the present second appeal are that land measuring 18 bigha 1katha 17 lechas covered by Dag No. 233 and 234 and Periodic Patta No. 4 originally belonged to one Uday Chandra Barman. Dag No. 233 comprised of land measuring 12 bigha 4 katha 11 lechas and Dag No. 234 comprised of land measuring 5 bigha 2 katha 6 lechas. Lalit Ch. Mandal acquired title over the entire 18 bighas 1 katha 17 lechas of the suit land covered by Periodic Patta No. 4 by right of purchase. Later on, Lalit Ch. Mandal sold land measuring 10 bigha 2 katha 6 lechas in favour of his son Rakhal Ch. Mandal in the year 1973. The land sold to Rakhal Ch. Mandal comprised of the entire land covered by Dag No. 234 and a portion of the land from Dag No. 233. The original plaintiff Lt. Ganesh Ch. Sutradhar purchased the entire suit land by two registered sale deeds on 10/04/1981 from Rakhal Ch. Mandal and Lalit Ch. Mandal. Rakhal Ch. Mandal sold land measuring 9 bigha 2 katha 6 lechas and Lallit Ch. Mandal also sold land measuring 9 bigha 2 katha 6 lechas in favour of the plaintiffs and in the process the plaintiff purchased 9 lechas of land in excess, not covered by the suit patta land and had been possessing the entire suit land. On 16/08/1997, the defendants claimed title over the suit land by right of purchase and forced the plaintiffs to file the suit, being T.S. No. 29/1997. The suit was dismissed for default and later on, it was restored. After dismissal of the suit for default, the defendants dispossessed the plaintiffs. Thus, the plaintiffs prayed for declaration of right, title and interest and recovery of possession in T.S. No.29/1997.
3. The pleaded case of the defendants was that Lalit Ch. Mandal was the original owner of the suit land, who sold 10 bigha 2 katha 6 lechas of land to his son Rakhal Ch. Mandal on 29/03/1973 and Rakhal Ch. Mandal sold 9 bigha 2 katha 9 lechas of the land to the plaintiffs by registered deed on 10/04/1981, which contained the entire land measuring 5 bigha 2 katha 6 lechas of Dag No. 234 and 4 bighas of land from Dag No. 233. After selling the land measuring 10 bigha 2 katha 6 lechas to Rakhal Ch. Mandal in the year 1973, Lalit Ch. Mandal did not have title over the land covered by Dag No. 234 and Lalit Ch. Mandal was left with only 7 bigha 4 katha 1 lecha of land in Dag No. 233. Out of the said land of Dag No. 233, Lalit Ch. Mandal sold 3 bigha of land in favour of Fulchand Sarkar and Lal Chand Sarkar in the year 1977 and said Fulchand Sarkar and Lal Chand Sarkar sold the said 3 bigha of land to defendant No. 3 in 1982. The remaining land measuring 4 bigha 4 katha 11 lechas in Dag No. 233 were in possession of the defendant No. 1 & 2, being the grandsons of the pattadar and ultimately on 16/12/1982, the said land was gifted to defendant No. 1 & 2 and therefore, the original owner Lalit Ch. Mandal did not have subsisting title on any portion of the land in the suit patta and therefore, the sale deed executed by Lalit Ch. Mandal in the year 1981 in favour of the plaintiffs was void and did not convey any title.
4. On the basis of the above pleadings of the parties, learned trial court framed the following issues. :-
1. Whether there is cause of action for the suit ?
2. Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form ?
3. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of parties ?
4. Whether the plaintiff has right, title, interest and possession over the suit land ?
5. To what relief or reliefs the plaintiffs are entitled to ?
Additional Issues :-
6. Whether the defendant dispossessed the plaintiff from the suit land ?
7. Whether the plaintiff is entitled
