Back
2017 Supreme(Sikk) 44
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SIKKIM, GANGTOK
MEENAKSHI MADAN RAI, J.
Smt. Naina Kala Sharma, W/o Shri Deepak Kumar Rai - Appellant
Versus
Shri. Deepak Kumar Rai, S/o Late Dhan Bahadur Rai - Respondent
RFA No. 06 Of 2016
Decided On : 13-04-2017
For the Appellants :Mr. Rajendra Upreti, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. A.K. Upadhyaya, Senior Advocate with Ms. Aruna Chettri, Advocate
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for substantial evidence to support property claims, the determination of self-acquired property rights, and the application of limitation provisions in property disputes.
Headnote:
Daijo Property - Dispute over Land Ownership - Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Section 13(1); Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 125
Fact of the Case:
The Appellant No.1 claimed that the disputed land was her 'Daijo' property, gifted by her father, and sought a decree declaring it as such. The Respondent contended that the land was his self-acquired property, purchased in 1998. The Trial Court dismissed the suit, leading to the appeal.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that there was no evidence to support the Appellant's claim of 'Daijo' property, and the property was indeed the self-acquired property of the Respondent. The Court also held that the Appellants had no right to seek partition as the property was self-acquired by the Respondent. Additionally, the suit was found to be barred by limitation.
Issues: Dispute over land ownership, claim of 'Daijo' property, right to seek partition, and limitation of the suit.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court's decision was based on the lack of evidence supporting the 'Daijo' property claim, the self-acquired nature of the property, and the limitation of the suit under the relevant provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, upholding the Trial Court's findings, and no costs were awarded to either party.
JUDGMENT :
Meenakshi Madan Rai, J.
The Plaintiffs are the Appellants before this Court, assailing the Judgment and Decree dated 29.02.2016 passed by the learned District Judge, South Sikkim at Namchi, in Title Suit No. 43 of 2013, dismissing the Suit filed by the Plaintiffs.
2. The case of the Appellants is that the Appellant No.1 was married to the Respondent in the year 1993 and Appellants No. 2 and 3 were born from the wedlock. They led a peaceful married life initially, both being government servants and posted in different places. In 1995, they rented accommodation in Namchi and started living in the same house. It is alleged by the Appellant No.1 that their marriage then entered a turbulent phase with the Respondent ill-treating her both physically and mentally. In May 2008, the house constructed on the disputed landed property was completed, therefore, they shifted residence there. Both the land and the house thereon are the subjects of dispute.
3. The Appellant No.1 asserts that the plot of land bearing Khasra No. 814 and Khatiyan No. 375 (described in the Schedule to the Plaint as Plot No. 320, measuring an area of. 0230 hectares) situated at Tinjer Block, South Division, South Sikkim, was in fact owned by her father, who gifted it to her as ‘Daijo’ (Marriage gift). The Respondent being landless pressurized her to transfer the land in his name, to which she succumbed under threats of abandonment held out by the Respondent. A Sale Deed was accordingly executed by her father in favour of the Respondent, showing a token payment of money by the Respondent for transferring the aforesaid land, when in fact, no money exchanged hands. Accordingly, the Suit land was registered in the name of the Respondent. In the year 2013, the Appellant No.1 moved an Application for divorce under Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which was accordingly allowed by the Family Court on 17.06.2013, consequent to which the Respondent turned hostile. A Petition was also filed by the Appellant No.1 under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 leading to a compromise on 18.07.2013.
4. Relying on Exhibit-9, which is the Panchayat recommendation addressed to the District Collector informing therein that the land claimed by the Respondent was in fact the ‘Daijo’ land given to the Appellant No.1, it was requested therein that the land be transferred and registered in the name of Appellants No.2 and 3. It is the Appellant’s case that the said document clearly indicated that the disputed land was her ‘Daijo’ property. She seeks to fortify her case by averring that her sisters were also given ‘Daijo’ property by her father. It was also averred that she has contributed to construction of the disputed building by availing of loan. Thus, the Appellants, inter alia, sought for a decree declaring that the Suit land is ‘Daijo’ property of the Appellant No.1 and the Respondent has no right, title and interest over it, while Appellants No.2 and 3 are entitled to partition and registration of the Suit property in their names.
5. The Respondent opposed the allegations and contended that the Suit property is his self-acquired property, purchased by him in the year 1998, from the father of the Appellant No.1 at a consideration value of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand) only, and denies that the Suit property was gifted as ‘Daijo’ to the Appellant No.1. That, the Suit land has been registered in his name duly following the procedure for registration of land, prevalent at the material time with the consent of the family members of the Appellant No.1, the executor of the Sale Deed being the Appellant’s father himself. That, plots of land were gifted to the sisters of the Appellant No.1, only in the year 2007, whereas the Respondent purchased the disputed plot of land in the year 1998, whereupon he constructed a two and a half storied building by obtaining a housing loan from the State Bank of India, Ravangla Branch, which has been duly repaid by ded
