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

2025 Supreme(Gau) 484

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

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. B.D. Deka
For the Respondent: Mr. D. Mozumdar, Sr. Adv., Mr. D. Choudhury, Mr. S. Banik.

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.

Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 100 - Title Suit - Appeal against concurrent findings of fact - Appellants sought declaration of right, title, and interest over 3/6th share in suit land and houses - Both courts below dismissed the suit, affirming that appellants failed to prove their claim of ownership and partition - The absence of a registered exchange deed was pivotal in the courts' decisions. (Paras 10-22)

(B) Burden of Proof - In a suit for declaration of title, the burden lies on the plaintiffs to establish their claim - Mere entries in the record of rights do not confer title. (Paras 11.1, 12.6)

(C) Concurrent Findings - High Court cannot interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless material evidence has been overlooked. (Paras 14, 15)

Facts of the case:
The appellants claimed ownership over land and houses based on inheritance from predecessors who allegedly exchanged properties with original owners. The trial court found no evidence of such exchange, leading to dismissal of the suit.

Findings of Court:
Both the trial and appellate courts found that the appellants failed to establish their right, title, and interest over the suit property, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

Issues: The main issues included whether the appellants had established their right to the property and whether the suit was maintainable.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the absence of a registered exchange deed and failure to prove ownership precluded the appellants from claiming title or partition.

Result: Appeal dismissed.

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

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