Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI, J.
Shri Anil Bandhu Bhattacharjee, S/o. Late Dina Bandhu Bhattacharjee – Petitioner
Versus
On The Death Of Nimai Chandra Bhattacharjee, His Legal Heirs Representing- Smti. Jyostna Bhattacharjee, (W/o. Late Nimai Chandra Bhattacharjee) and Ors. – Respondents
RSA No.52 Of 2020
Decided On : 16-07-2024
CIVIL PROCEDURE - PROPERTY DISPUTE - CPC Section 100, Evidence Act Section 58, Assam (Temporarily Settled Areas) Tenancy Act, 1971 Section 54 - The court discussed the provisions of Section 100 of the CPC regarding second appeals, emphasizing the burden of proof under Section 58 of the Evidence Act, which places the onus on the plaintiff to establish ownership. The court also examined the implications of the Assam Tenancy Act, particularly regarding tenant rights and eviction procedures. The interpretations of these provisions influenced the court's decision to allow the appeal, as the defendant's admissions and the plaintiffs' claims were found to be inconsistent with the evidence presented, leading to a decree for ejectment of the defendant from the disputed land.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, one of three plaintiffs, filed a suit for declaration of right, title, and interest over a plot of land, claiming the defendant had encroached upon a specific area. The defendant admitted the plaintiffs' ownership of the larger plot but claimed tenancy over the disputed area. The trial court dismissed the suit, leading to an appeal that was remanded for further consideration due to a lack of findings on possession.
Finding of the Court:
The First Appellate Court found that the defendant had not proven his tenancy and that the plaintiffs were entitled to relief. However, it ultimately ruled against the plaintiffs on the grounds of insufficient evidence to establish ownership of the larger plot, despite earlier findings favoring the plaintiffs on other issues.
Issues: 1. Did the defendants admit the plaintiffs' ownership? 2. Was the defendant evictable? 3. Were the plaintiffs entitled to any relief? 4. Was the suit properly valued?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the absence of documentary evidence did not preclude the plaintiffs from obtaining a decree for eviction, especially given the defendant's admissions regarding the ownership of the land. The court emphasized that the findings on the first two issues, which favored the plaintiffs, should have led to a decree for ejectment.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, the substantial questions of law were decided in favor of the appellant, and the suit was decreed for the ejectment of the defendant from the disputed land.
JUDGMENT :
(Sanjay Kumar Medhi, J.)
The instant appeal has been preferred under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure against a judgment and decree dated 24.06.2019 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Dhubri in Title Appeal No. 06/2004, whereby the judgment and decree dated 24.12.2003 of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) No. 1, Dhubri in Title Suit No. 27/1998 has been partly affirmed. The appellant was one of the plaintiffs in the said suit.
2. Before going to the issue which requires a determination towards answering the substantial questions of law formulated by this Court on 11.03.2020, it would be convenient if the basic facts of the case are narrated in brief. It is to be clarified that while the suit was instituted by 3 nos. of plaintiffs, the present appeal is preferred by the plaintiff no. 3 as appellant. The other two plaintiffs had passed away in the meantime and though their legal heirs were initially made pro-forma respondents, subsequently vide an order of this Court dated 17.02.2021, their names have been struck off. Likewise, in the suit there was only one defendant and on his demise, his legal heirs have been made respondents. Therefore, in this judgment the reference would be as appellant and respondents.
3. The appellant, as one of the plaintiffs had instituted the aforesaid Title Suit No. 27/1998 for a declaration of right, title and interest and recovery of khas possession. As per the projection made in the plaint, the plaintiffs were the owners of a plot of land covered by Dag No. 361, Khatian No. 283 of Village -Mancachar, which was the Schedule-A land. Within the said Schedule-A land, the suit land is an area of 30 feet x 50 feet which was the Schedule-B land. It was contended that the defendant (the predecessor-in-interest of respondents) had encroached upon the Schedule-B land and accordingly the suit was instituted.
4. The defendant had contested the suit by filing written statement in which there was an admission that the plaintiffs were indeed the owner of Schedule-A land. However, the area of land under Schedule-B was under his possession on the strength of Rayati Khatian No. 315 under Dag No. 3229 (Old) 2500 (New) pertaining to a plot measuring 1 Katha 19 Lecha. It was contended that the defendant was the tenant of the plaintiffs and accordingly, the Rayati Khaitian was issued. Though the plaintiffs had adduced evidence through 3 nos. of plaintiff witnesses, no documents were exhibited or proved by the plaintiffs in the suit. On the contrary, the defendant had adduced evidence through 2 nos. of Defendant witnesses and had also proved the Rayoti Khatian as Ext-Ka, Land Holding Certificates as Ext-Kha and Revenue receipts as Ext-Ga.
5. The learned Trial Court had formulated the following issues:
(ii) Whether the defendant is evictable?
(iii) Whether the plaintiff is entitles to get any relief?
(iv) Is this suit not properly valued?”
6. Vide the initial judgment and order dated 24.12.2003, the learned Trial Court had dismissed the suit by deciding all the issues in favour of the defendants and against the plaintiffs.
7. The appellant had thereafter preferred Title Appeal No. 06/2004 in the Court of the Civil Judge, Dhubri. The learned First Appellate Court, vide the judgment and order dated 11.05.2007 had dismissed the appeal affirming the judgment of the learned Trial Court.
8. The appellant had thereafter preferred RSA 134/2007 before this Court. The said RSA was disposed of vide Judgment and Order dated 16.08.2018, whereby the matter was remanded back to the First Appellate Court for a fresh decision. This Court had observed that no finding was recorded by the Court below regarding the possession of the defendants over Schedule-B land.
9. On such remand, the learned Civil Judge, Dhubri, as the first Appellate Court had passed the impugned judgment and order dated 24.06.2019 by which the
In property disputes, admissions by the defendant regarding ownership can significantly influence the outcome, and the absence of documentary evidence does not necessarily bar a decree for eviction i....
The court upheld the admissibility of historical tenancy documents under Section 90 of the Evidence Act, confirming the plaintiffs' rights over the land despite challenges regarding document validity....
The court confirmed that adverse possession can secure title even against invalid transfer documents, provided uninterrupted possession exceeds 12 years and is public, emphasizing the significance of....
Concurrent findings of fact by the Trial Court and First Appellate Court are binding and cannot be interfered with under Section 100 of the CPC.
The plaintiffs cannot claim a mere declaration of title without seeking further relief for possession, as stipulated by Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, rendering the suit not maintainable.
The record of rights (Khatian) is presumptive evidence of ownership, establishing Rayati rights until disproved, leading to recovery of possession.
A concurrent finding of facts affirmed by appellate courts must be based on evidence; mere possession without title does not confer rights against established ownership.
The presumption of due execution for registered documents under the Indian Evidence Act places the burden of proof on the party challenging the validity of such documents, and failure to provide suff....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
