Back
2018 Supreme(Gau) 932
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
MIR ALFAZ ALI, J.
On death of Monoranjan Deb His Sole Legal Heirs Is Madan Mohan Deb - Appellant
Versus
On death of Prasanna Kr Das His Legal Heirs Binod Kr Das and Others - Respondent
Regular Second Appeal No. 52 of 2008
Decided On : 07-09-2018
T.U. Laskar, Adv.
The importance of documentary evidence in establishing possession and title, and the court's authority to reinstate a judgment based on concurrent findings of possession and established title.
Headnote:
possession - Land Dispute - State acquisition of Jamindary's Act - Ext.1, Ext.5, Ext.2 - [State acquisition of Jamindary's Act] - [Ext.1, Ext.5, Ext.2] - The court discussed the possession of the plaintiff over the suit land, rejected the defendant's claim of title, and emphasized the importance of documentary evidence in establishing possession and title. The court found the first appellate court's finding on the boundary of the land to be perverse and misdirected, and reinstated the judgment and decree of the learned Munsiff.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of right, title, confirmation of possession, and permanent injunction over a disputed land. The plaintiff claimed possession and title based on a deed of lease and subsequent purchase of jot right over the land. The defendants contested the plaintiff's claim, asserting that the land was transferred to them by the original owner and that the plaintiff did not have title or possession over the disputed land.
Finding of the Court:
Both the trial court and the first appellate court found that the plaintiff was in possession of the suit land and rejected the defendant's claim of title. The first appellate court, however, dismissed the suit based on a finding regarding the identity of the land, which the court deemed to be perverse and misdirected. The second appeal was allowed, and the judgment and decree of the learned Munsiff were restored.
Issues: (i) Cause of action for the suit, (ii) Defect of the parties, (iii) Proper valuation of the suit, (iv) Plaintiff's rights, title, interest, and possession over the suit land, (v) Relief/reliefs
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of documentary evidence in establishing possession and title, and found the first appellate court's finding on the boundary of the land to be perverse and misdirected. The court reinstated the judgment and decree of the learned Munsiff based on the concurrent finding of possession and established title of the plaintiff.
Final Decision: The second appeal was allowed, and the judgment and decree of the learned Munsiff were restored.
MIR ALFAZ ALI, J.
1. This second appeal is by the plaintiff, against the judgment and decree dated 14.06.2007 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Karimganj in Title Appeal No. 13/1998, whereby, the learned appellate court reversing the judgment of the Munsiff, passed in Title Suit No. 97/1989 dismissed the suit of the plaintiff.
2. Brief facts leading to the present second appeal were that the plaintiff filed Title Suit No. 97/1989 for declaration of right, title, confirmation of possession and permanent injunction. The case of the plaintiff was that the suit land originally belonged to Bharat Samitee Limited. The said Bharat Samitee Limited by executing a deed of lease on 11.08.1955 leased out the land described in Schedule-1 of the plaint to one Jagat Choudhury, who had been possessing the said land as jotdar. Subsequently, the plaintiff purchased the jot right over schedule-1 land from said Jagat Choudhury by registered deed on 18.03.1969 and had been possessing the same without any interference. The defendants No. 1 & 2 had a plot of land adjacent to the land of the plaintiff. During the enforcement of State acquisition of Jamindary's Act, the lands were surveyed and during such survey operation, the land of the plaintiff described in schedule-1 of the plaint, which was covered by Taluk No. 15796/211 and the contiguous land of the defendants No. 1 & 2 were surveyed as Dag No. 113 & 114 of Khatian No. 4 and Dag No. 69 of Khatian No. 25 of Kalinga Nagar. However, name of the proforma defendants No. 3, 4 & 5, who were strangers to the land wrongly recorded in respect of the said land. The plaintiff and the principal defendants No. 1 & 2 approached the Sub-Deputy Collector for correction of the record and in the said proceeding, there was an amicable settlement between the plaintiff and defendants No. 1 & 2. As per the said amicable settlement, .60 decimol land on western side of Dag No. 69, entire 93 decimol of Dag No. 113 and 1.1 are land on the eastern side of Dag No. 114 fell in the share of the plaintiff. 60.70 decimol of the land of the eastern part of Dag No. 69 and 1.65 acre in the western side of Dag No. 114 fell in the share of the defendants. On the basis of the said partition, again a mutation case was filed for correction of the record in respect of Dag No. 69, 113 & 114 and after hearing the parties, the concerned settlement officer granted mutation of the plaintiff in respect of Dag No. 113 & 114 and rejected the claim of the plaintiff in respect of western part of Dag No. 69. Taking advantage of the said order of the settlement officer in the mutation proceeding, the defendants No. 1 & 2 were threatening the plaintiff to disposes from the suit land covered by Dag No. 69, described in schedule-2 of the plaint and as such, the plaintiff instituted the suit for declaration of right, title and interest and permanent injunction.
3. The pleaded case of the defendants were that the Bharat Samitee Limited, which was the original owner of the land, transferred the land of Dag No. 69, 113 & 114 to one Tarani Mohan Deb, predecessor of the defendants No. 3 & 4 and proforma defendant No. 5 Abani Mohan Deb. On the basis of such purchase, Abani Mohan Deb and Tarani Mohan Deb were possessing the suit land and they also sold 4 katha of land of Dag No. 113 & 114 to one Brojendra Malakar. Proforma defendants No. 3 & 4 being the legal heirs of Tarani Mohan Deb and proforma defendant No. 5 had been possessing the suit land of Dag No. 69 having right, title and interest thereon. The defendants, further stated that the land of Dag No. 69 was never possessed by the vendor of the plaintiff Jagat Choudhury. Further case of the defendants were that the proforma defendants No. 3, 4 & 5 sold the suit land of Dag No. 69 to the main defendants by registered deed No. 692 and delivered possession to the defendants and the plaintiff never possessed the land of Dag No. 69 nor they have title over there.
4. On the basis of the above pleading
