Back
2017 Supreme(Sikk) 9
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SIKKIM AT GANGTOK
MEENAKSHI MADAN RAI, J.
K.B. Bhandari - Appellants
Vs.
Laxuman Limboo - Respondent
RSA No. 2 of 2016
Decided On : 12-07-2017
For the Appellant : Udai P. Sharma and Anup Gurung
For the Respondents: N. Rai, Tamanna Chhetri and Suraj Chhetri
The judgment established the principles of adverse possession, proper execution of Sale Deeds, and the consequences of land encroachment.
Headnote:
Adverse Possession - Property Dispute - Sikkim State Rules, Registration of Document, 1930, Section 10 - Sale Deed - Mutation Order - Land Records - Encroachment - Interpolation - Compensation - Decree
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a property dispute where the Plaintiff claimed right, title, and interest over certain land, alleging encroachment by the Defendants. The Trial Court decreed in favor of the Plaintiff, which was confirmed by the Appellate Court.
Finding of the Court:
The Trial Court found that the Defendants had encroached upon the Plaintiff's land and were liable to remove/demolish any existing structure. It also concluded that the Sale Deed had been interpolated and the land undervalued. The Appellate Court confirmed these findings.
Issues: The issues included the ownership of the disputed land, encroachment, interpolation of documents, undervaluation, adverse possession, and compensation.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court found that the Defendants had encroached upon the Plaintiff's land and failed to establish adverse possession. It also held that the Sale Deed had been improperly altered and the land undervalued.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the findings of the lower courts and ordering no costs.
Meenakshi Madan Rai, J.
1. This Appeal arises out of the impugned judgment of the learned District Judge, East Sikkim at Gangtok, in Title Appeal No. 2 of 2015, dated 9.6.2016, which in turn arose out of the impugned judgment and decree of the learned Civil Judge, East Sikkim at Gangtok, in Title Suit No. 9 of 2014 dated 30.4.2015. The learned Appellate Court, vide its impugned judgment confirmed the findings of the learned Civil Judge, East Sikkim, hence this Second Appeal which was admitted on the following substantial question of law.
"Whether in arriving in its findings, the judgment of the First Appellate Court has ignored the material evidence on record?"
2. In order to understand the matter in its correct perspective, it is essential to briefly advert to the facts of the case. The appearance of the parties before the learned Trial Court was as follows;
The Appellant before the First Appellate Court and herein, was the Defendant No. 1. The Respondent No. 1 was the Plaintiff, while the Pro forma Respondent herein was the Defendant No. 2. The parties shall be addressed herein in terms of their appearance before this Court. As the Defendant No. 3 before the learned Trial Court is not a party to this Appeal, he shall be referred to as Defendant No. 3.
3. It was averred by the Respondent No. 1 before the learned Trial Court that he is the son of Til Bahadur Limboo, who owned landed property, which included Plot Nos. 250 and 251 under Khatiyan No. 25, having an area of 1.20 acres and 0.38 acres respectively at Tharpu Block, Soreng, West Sikkim. In the year 1979, Til Bahadur Limboo sold out a portion of land from Plot No. 250, measuring an area of 0.15 acres equivalent to 0.0600 hectare to late Phip Raj Limboo. Phip Raj Limboo in turn, in 1983, sold the aforesaid land measuring 0.15 acres to the Appellant, by which time the plot number was renumbered as 329 and the area measured in hectares. The sold land did not share any boundary with the Naya Bazaar Sombaria road. After a few years of such purchase, the Appellant started encroaching on another plot of land belonging to Til Bahadur Limboo, being Plot No. 324 and into the unsold portion of Plot No. 329. The Appellant, after purchasing the land from Phip Raj Limboo, interpolated the Sale Deed document, Exhibit D-1-1, executed between him and late Phip Raj Limboo, thereby increasing the area of land purchased by him to 0.19 acres equivalent to 0.0780 hectare, instead of 0.15 acres equivalent to 0.0600 hectare, actually purchased by him. He then sold a portion of the land from Plot No. 329 to the Pro forma Respondent in the year 1999, who also started encroaching upon Plot No. 324 of the land of the Respondent No. 1 and the unsold portion of Plot No. 329, hence the Respondent No. 1, inter alia, sought the following relief’s;
"(a) a decree declaring that the suit land is the integral part of plot No. 324 and unsold portion of plot No. 329 belonging to the plaintiff and the plaintiff has right, title and interest over the suit land.
(b) a decree directing the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 for vacating the Schedule land and to hand over the same to the plaintiff.
(c) a decree for removal/demolition of the structure put up by the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 upon the suit land.
(d) a decree for nullifying and cancelling the interpolation made in the sale deed of the Defendant Nos. 1 and/or 2 and resultant direction to the defendant No. 3 to make correction of the said documents along with the mutated records of right of defendant Nos. 1 and/or 2, if any.
(e) a decree directing the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 to pay a compensation of Rs. 50,000/- to the plaintiff for the damages caused to the suit land.
(f) the cost of this title suit may be awarded to the plaintiff.
(g) any other relief or relief’s as the plaintiff may be found entitled to under the law."
4. The Appellant for this part averred that his land is covered by Khasra No. 329/684 and he had originally purchased 0.0780 hectare of land from Plot
