The court emphasized the importance of primary documentary evidence and the need to prove the contents of documents. It also highlighted the significance of the Law of Limitation in property disputes.

JUDGMENT :

Meenakshi Madan Rai, J.

1. The Appellant is before this Court assailing the Judgment and Decree, dated 24-03-2017, in Title Suit No.05 of 2014, Shri Damber Singh Chettri vs. Shri Lachuman Chettri, vide which the Learned District Judge, West Sikkim, at Gyalshing, dismissed his Suit.

2. The facts pivot around the ownership of two plots of land over which both the Appellant and the Respondent claim ownership, viz., Plot Nos.344 and 345, as recorded in the survey records of 1950-52, situated at Lungjik Block, Gyalshing, West Sikkim, measuring 4.75 and 0.13 acres respectively, converted to Plot Nos.482, 488, 486, 987, 489, 490 and 541, measuring a total area of 2.0800 hectares, during the 1977-78 survey operations. The Appellant claims that he is the son of one late Nayan Singh Chettri and grandson of Late Ganja Singh Chettri. The Respondent is his brother-in-law, a former resident of Srinagi, West Sikkim, now residing at Lower Lungjik Block, West Sikkim. As per the Appellant, his father had two sons, himself and his late brother Dhan Bahadur Chettri, a bachelor, who passed away in the year 1954, leaving behind Plot Nos.343, 344, 345, 349, 352 and 356 (1950-52 records), measuring a total area of 6.69 hectares, situated at Lungjik Block, West Sikkim. On his passing, the entire properties allegedly came into the possession and occupation of the Appellant and his father, Nayan Singh Chettri. In the year 1977, the Appellant left for Manipur seeking livelihood and on his father’s demise in 1980 he was unable to attend the death rites due to a Malaria epidemic in Manipur which he too contracted. In 1982, he returned home for a short period and handed over the suit properties to the Respondent for its maintenance. On his return home finally in 2001 he found that the said suit properties were illegally occupied by the Respondent as its owner. On 26-04-2011, on enquiry under the Right to Information Act, 2005, from the Office of the District Collector, West Sikkim, he found that the suit properties were recorded in the name of Dhan Bahadur Chettri as per the records of 1952 and later sold to the Respondent. The Appellant hence filed the Title Suit and sought a declaration that registration and mutation of Plot Nos. 344 and 345 (1950-52 records) converted to 482, 488, 486, 987, 489, 490 and 541 (1977-78 records) in the name of the Respondent is liable to be cancelled. He also sought a declaration that the entire plots of land mentioned in Schedule ‘A’ to the plaint are his ancestral properties which ought to be mutated and registered in his name and handed over to him by the Respondent.

3. The Appellant’s averments were disputed by the Respondent who asserted that he had married the Appellant’s younger sister in the year 1979 but was neither aware nor informed that the Appellant had a sibling named Dhan Bahadur Chettri. His father-in-law, Nayan Singh Chettri possessed some landed property including the suit property which was sold to him on 08-02-1978, vide Exhibit ‘A’, duly substantiated by Money Receipt, Exhibit ‘G’, while Exhibit ‘H’ scribed by Nayan Singh Chettri addressed to the Gram Panchayat of Lungjik Block revealed the exigencies compelling him to sell the property to the Respondent. The Respondent averred that infact the Appellant the only son of his parents had intermittently visited them before their demise and was well aware of the transaction of the disputed plots of which the Respondent has been in continuous possession and occupation since 1978, hence the Suit is not maintainable.

4. The Learned Trial Court framed the following issues for determination;

i. Whether the suit of the Plaintiff is barred by the Law of Limitation?

ii. Whether the suit lands are ancestral landed properties of the Plaintiff and the Defendant had no right to transfer and to take possession of the suit lands in his name since he is a stranger to the ancestral lineage of the Plaintiff?

iii. Whether the suit lands were given to the Defendant for the s