THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
NELSON SAILO, J.
Lalmuankimi, Ramthar Veng, Lunglei District, Mizoram – Petitioner
Versus
State of Mizoram, r/b the Chief Secretary to the Govt. of Mizoram and Others
RSA No.8 Of 2019
Decided On : 14-12-2023
Limitation - Land Dispute - Mizoram Civil Court’s Act, 2005, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 17(2)(b), Section 100 - Indian Limitation Act, 1963 - Article 64, Article 65
Fact of the Case:
The appellant filed a second appeal against the lower appellate court's decision to set aside the judgment in a land dispute case, declaring the respondent as the rightful owner of the suit land, on the grounds of limitation.
Finding of the Court:
The lower appellate court held that the suit was barred by limitation, applying the principles of adverse possession, and directed the Settlement Officer to allocate suitable land to the appellant and others within the suit land.
Issues: The main issue was whether the Title Suit No. 12/2010 was barred by limitation, and whether adverse possession had occurred.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the burden of proof in establishing adverse possession, the necessity of pleading adverse possession, and the application of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963, specifically Article 64 and Article 65.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the matter was remanded back to the lower appellate court for fresh consideration on merit.
JUDGMENT :
Heard Mr. A R Malhotra, learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff, Mrs. Linda L Fambawl, learned Government Advocate for the State respondent Nos. 1 to 4/defendant Nos.1 to 4 and Mr. L H Lianhrima, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. Ruth Lalruatfeli for the respondent No. 5/defendant No.5.
2. This is a second appeal filed by the appellant under Section 17(2)(b) of the Mizoram Civil Court’s Act, 2005 (Civil Court’s Act) r/w Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) against the Order dated 13.03.2019 passed by the Court of District Judge, Lunglei (First Appellate Court) whereby, the First Appellate Court set aside the Judgment & Order dated 12.08.2014 of the learned Trial Court and the decree drawn while declaring the present respondent No. 5 as the absolute and rightful owner of the suit land after coming to the conclusion that the Civil Suit was barred by limitation.
3. This Court vide Order dated 08.10.2020 while issuing notice to the respondents formulated the following substantial question of law:-
4. Brief facts of the case essential for disposal of the instant appeal is that the father of the appellant Sh. Zahunga was allotted a plot of land at Ramthar near AOC, Lunglei by the District Council under the Periodic (Garden) Pass No. 718/1977 measuring about 8 (eight) bighas. In the said plot of land, both the family of Sh. Zahunga and his late brother Sh. Bahadur Chhetri jointly resided. Apart from the residential building of the appellant, the Automobile Workshop in the name and style of ‘Lily Hyundai Workshop’ owned by the son-in-law of the respondent No. 5 was operated from the land in question on payment of rental charge.
5. Sh. Zahunga expired on 22.02.1998 leaving behind the appellant as the only surviving member of the family since his wife Sangkungi expired before him on 17.01.1986 and their 3 (three) sons and one daughter had also expired a long time back. According to the appellant, she paid all the house taxes due from the said property which was in the name of her late father till the year, 2007. However, when she tried to pay the taxes in the year 2007, she was informed by the Office of the respondent No. 4 that in the official records, there was no land or building in the name of Sh. Zahunga and therefore, she was asked to discontinue paying the taxes. On making further enquiry, the appellant came to learn that the Periodic (Garden) Pass No. 718/1977 covering an area of 8 bighas was already transferred in the name of Sh. F Lalchhawna, h/o respondent No. 5 way back in the year 1990 without the knowledge and consent of Sh. Zahunga. According to the appellant, Sh. Lalchhawna illegally transferred the ownership of the land in his name and that her father Sh. Zahunga never sold his land nor did he receive Rs.3 lakhs from Sh. F Lalchhawna. Further, Sh. Zahunga being illiterate and uneducated, he neither could write his name nor gave his signature in the application form for transfer of ownership of land as was claimed by the respondents. It is therefore the contention of the appellant that without the knowledge and consent of her father, the land Pass was illegally converted into Garden LSC No. 4/G of 1990 by Sh. F Lalchhawna, h/o the respondent No.5.
6. The appellant came to learn that the Garden LSC No. 4/G of 1990 was again divided and segregated into Garden LSC No. 209001/10/G/2 of 2003 covering an area of 2.90 bighas in the name of respondent No. 5. Being aggrieved with the action of the husband of the respondent No. 5, the appellant approached the respondent No. 5 on several occasions for settlement of their differences but instead, she was threatened to be evicted from her land. The son-in-law of the respondent No. 5 also stopped paying rent for running the Automobile Workshop from the suit land.
7. The appellant also came to learn that the land Pass which was in the name of her late father Sh. Zahunga was induced to be hand
Ramesh Chand Sharma Vs. Udham Singh Kamal & Ors. with State of H.P. Vs. Udham Singh Kamal & Ors.
Union of India & Anr. Vs. Punjab Singh & Anr.
C.N. Ramappa Gowda Vs. C.C. Chandregowda (Dead) by LRS. & Anr.
Basawaraj & Anr. Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer
Union of India & Ors. Vs. Vasavi Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. & Ors.
Stat of Mizoram & Ors. Vs. Sh. Vanthangliana & Ors.
R. Chandevarappa & Ors., Vs. State of Karnataka
Karnataka Board of Wakf Vs. Government of India & Ors.
S M Karim v. Bibi Sakinal AIR 1964 SC 1254
Point of Law : It is a well-settled principle of law that a party claiming adverse possession must prove that his possession is 'nec vi, nec clam, nec precario', that is, peaceful, open and continuou....
Adverse possession requires the defendant to prove continuous, open, and hostile possession for the statutory period, which was not established in this case.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that ownership rights over land must be supported by valid evidence and in accordance with the provisions of the Mizo District (Land and Revenue) A....
It is settled that necessary ingredients of adverse possession are required to be specifically pleaded and necessary factual foundation in support thereof is to be made out. Equally important is nece....
Defendants claiming adverse possession must prove such claims with clear evidence, as the burden lies with them, and mere long possession does not equate to ownership.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the principle of adverse possession and its application to determine property rights and limitation.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.