THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Robin Phukan, J.
Shri Pinaki Prasad Biswas And Ors. S/o Late Biren Chandra Biswas - Appellant
Vs.
Smti. Mandira Danda And Ors. W/o Late Mridul Kanti Danda
RSA/134/2019
Decided On : 24-04-2025
JUDGEMENT & ORDER :
ROBIN PHUKAN, J.
Heard Mr. B.D. Deka, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. D.Mozumdar, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. D. Choudhury, learned counsel for the respondents.
2. In this appeal, under Section 100 of the C.P.C., the appellants have put to challenge the correctness or otherwise of the Judgment and Decree, dated 12.03.2019, passed by the learned Additional District Judge No. 2, Nagaon (‘first appellate court’, for short), in Title Appeal No. 11/2016.
3. It is to be noted here that vide impugned Judgment and Decree dated 12.03.2019, the learned first appellate court had affirmed the Judgment and Decree, dated 18.02.2016, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Nagaon (‘trial court’, for short), in Title Suit No. 49/2005, where by the suit filed by the appellants herein for declaration of right, title and interest over 3/6th share in the suit land and the houses standing over there as described in Schedule A and also 3/6th share of rent of the houses receivable from the tenants and a preliminary decree for directing the principal defendant Nos. 1 – 10 to effect partition of the appellants share of land and houses and delivery of possession of the same to the appellants herein.
Background Facts:-
4. The background facts, leading to filing of the present appeal, are adumbrated herein below:-
“One Abdul Razak and Abdul Sattar were the owner of a plot of land, covered by PP No. 65, and another plot of land, covered by PP No. 72, belongs to five persons, namely, Abdul Razak, Abdul Sattar, Israfil, Joinal Abedin and Ramjan Bibi, as per the settlement held in the year 1957 - 58.
About 40 years back, on 23.10.1976, the names of Kumud Bandhu Danda and his wife Labanya Prova Danda, since deceased, came to be recorded in the aforementioned two pattas, by right of exchange, in place of previous pattadars mentioned herein above, and said Kumud Bandhu and Labanya Prova used to possess said pattas land in joint right, title and interest.
After the exchange, the previous pattadars, namely, Abdul Razak and four others left for East Pakistan, now Bangladesh, and they suffered demise there. Thereafter, Kumud Bandhu and Labanya Prova raised various constructions over the said land and let out the same to different persons, including Central Bank of India and also ‘BATA’ India Limited.
Thereafter, Kumud Bandhu died in or about 1976, leaving his wife Labanya and three sons viz Keteki Ranjan, Mrinal Kanti and Mridul Kanti Danda. Thereafter, Ketaki Ranjan died in the year 2002, leaving behind Smti Mira Danda, Sri Ashim Danda and Sri Chitrangada Danda as his heirs. And Mrinal Kanti died leaving behind Smti Maya Danda and Smti Malashree Basu as his heirs. And Mridul Kanti left Smti Mandira Danda, Smti Mrinmoyee Talukdar and Smti Maitroyee Das as his heirs. And Kumud Bandhu also left three daughters namely, Smti Bela Biswas, Smti Ila Danda and Smti Shila Choudhury as his heirs. As such, on the death of Kumud Bandhu his properties including the suit properties devolved on his said heirs in ejmali and in equal shares. Thereafter, Labanya Probha also died in the year 1978, leaving behind the aforesaid three sons and three daughters as her heirs. As such, Ketaki Ranjan, Bela Biswas and Ila Danda th jointly became owners and possessors of 3/6 shares in the suit land and the houses standing thereon by right of inheritance.
Late Kumud Bandhu Danda, Labnya Prova Danda, Smti Maya Danda, Smti Malashree Basu, Smti Mandira Danda, Smti Mrinmoyee Talukdar, Smti Maitroyee Das and Smti Shila Choudhury are actually permanent residents of Kolkata. And as the suit properties are situated in Assam, it becomes difficult for Kumud Bandu, Labanya Prova and after their death for the legal heirs to look after and manage the suit properties situated at Nagaon. After the death of Kumud Bandhu and Labanya Prova, their other sons and daughters asked Mridul Kanti Danda to take necessary steps for mutating the name of the heirs of Kumud Bandhu and Labanya Prov
In property disputes, the burden of proof lies on the plaintiffs to establish their title, and mere entries in records do not confer ownership without supporting evidence.
The plaintiff must prove ownership and continuous possession of the land, maintaining the burden of proof to establish title in her favor.
Plaintiffs in a title suit must prove their ownership to succeed, independent of the defendants’ claims. Failure to provide adequate evidence results in dismissal of the suit.
The plaintiff established ownership and continuous possession of the land through valid documents and rectification, contrary to the lower appellate court's findings.
The presumption of joint family property necessitates proof of individual ownership; without such proof, a child has a right to claim share in ancestral property.
The burden of proof lies on the person asserting a fact until it is discharged, and no party can travel beyond its pleading.
Revenue records do not confer ownership; adverse possession requires clear and unequivocal evidence of denial of title.
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 first appellate court's findings of fact are final unless found to be manifestly perverse or contrary to the evidence on record.
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.