SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Gau) 1422

THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
KAUSHIK GOSWAMI, J.
Hmingthankima and Anr. – Petitioner
Versus
Sapbela and Ors. – Respondents
RSA No.7 Of 2015
Decided On : 14-12-2023

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. F. Lalengliana.
For the Respondents: Mr. C. Lalramzauva.

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) Act, 1956. Additionally, the court clarified that lack of knowledge of an illegal sale can prevent the bar of limitation.

Headnote:

RSA No. 7/2015 - Land Dispute - Mizoram Civil Courts Act, 2005, Section 17(2); CPC, Section 100 - The court discussed the purchase of the suit land, mutation, and ownership rights under the Mizo District (Land and Revenue) Act, 1956. The court found that the plaintiff's claim of ownership was not supported by evidence and the settlement certificate recognized the defendant's grandfather as the rightful owner. The court also found the suit was not barred by limitation as the plaintiff had no knowledge of the illegal sale until the demolition of the house. The court reversed the lower court's decision and dismissed the declaratory suit.

Fact of the Case:

The plaintiff claimed ownership of a land purchased by his father, which was later mutated and sold to the defendants. The Trial Court and the First Appellate Court found in favor of the plaintiff, declaring him as the rightful owner. The defendants appealed, arguing that the plaintiff's evidence was manufactured and the suit was barred by limitation.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the plaintiff's evidence of purchase was not supported by the law and the settlement certificate recognized the defendant's grandfather as the rightful owner. The court also found the suit was not barred by limitation as the plaintiff had no knowledge of the illegal sale until the demolition of the house. The court reversed the lower court's decision and dismissed the declaratory suit.

Issues: The issues included the validity of the plaintiff's evidence of purchase, the bar of limitation, and the title and ownership of the land.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the plaintiff's evidence of purchase was not supported by the law and the settlement certificate recognized the defendant's grandfather as the rightful owner. The court also found the suit was not barred by limitation as the plaintiff had no knowledge of the illegal sale until the demolition of the house.

Final Decision: The court reversed the lower court's decision and dismissed the declaratory suit.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. F. Lalengliana, learned counsel for the appellants. Also heard Mr. C. Lalramzauva, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. Lalrochami, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1/plaintiff and Mrs. Mary L. Khiangte, learned Government Advocate for the respondent Nos. 2 to 4.

2. This RSA No. 7/2015 is filed under Section 17(2) of the Mizoram Civil Courts Act, 2005 read with Section 100 of CPC against the Judgment and Order dated 29.04.2015 in RFA No. 37/2014 arising out of Declaratory Suit No. 6/2004 passed by the Hon’ble Court of Addl. District Judge, Aizawl Judicial District.

3. The case of the plaintiff/respondent No. 1 is that his late father i.e., Sh. Zabanga had purchased the suit land covered by LSC No. 201/1975 in the year 1959 jointly with his friends, i.e., Sh. Denghuaia and Sh. Hrangluaia (L) from Sh. Tebawnga. Since, the plaintiff/respondent No.1’s mother had already died, the plaintiff/respondent No.1’s late father alongwith the plaintiff/respondent No. 1 and his other siblings occupied the suit land. In the year 1962, the plaintiff/respondent No. 1’s father passed away and since the plaintiff/respondent No. 1 and his other siblings were very young, their grandfather Sh. Suka looked after them. Later on, Sh. Suka mutated the suit land to his name under House Pass No. 91/1965 and thereafter, converted the same to Land Settlement Certificate under LSC No. 201/1975. Sh. Suka died on 06.01.1985. The defendant No. 1, who is the son of defendant No. 2, i.e., daughter of Sh. Suka, without the knowledge of the plaintiff/respondent No. 1 and the other surviving children of Sh. Suka had stolen the LSC No. 201/1975 and mutated the same to the name of the defendant No. 1. Thereafter, the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 had sold the suit land to the defendant No. 3. It appears from the plaint that though the plaintiff/respondent No. 1 had earlier submitted the heirship application before the Sub-District Council Court, Aizawl, in H.C. Case No. 388 of 2003 praying for declaring himself as the legal heir of his late father and grandfather in respect of LSC No. 201/1975, the said heirship application was disposed of vide Order dated 21.08.2003 for submitting the plaint in a proper form. Though the plaintiff/respondent No. 1 had filed a fresh suit, the same was withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh vide the Order dated 22.09.2004. Admittedly, no further fresh suit has been filed till date. It is the case of the plaintiff/respondent No. 1 that since the suit land was purchased by his late father Sh. Zabanga and he being the youngest son of Sh. Zabanga, has every right to inherit the suit land and the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 have cheated him and converted the suit land to their own names.

4. Accordingly, the plaintiff/respondent No. 1 filed the declaratory suit claiming inter-alia, for a decree declaring that the mutation of LSC No. 201/1975 located at Tuikual ‘S’ by the defendants Nos. 4 -6 in favour of the defendant No. 1 and thereafter, in the name of the defendant No. 3 is illegal and null and void and for a decree declaring that the suit land covered by LSC No. 201/1975 was purchased by Sh. Zabanga (L) and the plaintiff/respondent No. 1 being the son of Sh. Zabanga (L) is the rightful and legal owner of the suit land covered by LSC No. 201/1975.

5. On the other hand, the case of the defendants/appellants is that the suit land was never purchased by the plaintiff/respondent No. 1’s father Sh. Zabanga and it was purchased by defendant No. 2’s father Sh. Suka, which is evident from the House Pass No. 91/1965. In the said House Pass, it was clearly mentioned that the suit land was purchased by Sh. Suka from Sh. Tebawnga, C.I.D. The pass issued by the Revenue Officer, Mizoram District Council dated 28.10.1965 clearly stated that the land was purchased by Sh. Suka from Sh. Tebawnga and that the House Pass No. 91/1965 was later

                    Click Here to Read the rest of this document
                    1
                    2
                    3
                    4
                    5
                    6
                    7
                    8
                    9
                    10
                    11
                    SupremeToday Portrait Ad
                    supreme today icon
                    logo-black

                    An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

                    Please visit our Training & Support
                    Center or Contact Us for assistance

                    qr

                    Scan Me!

                    India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

                    For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

                    whatsapp-icon Back to top