Back
2014 Supreme(Tri) 30
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
Utpalendu Bikas Saha, J.
Deity (The God-Shiva) Represented by Smt. Kamala Nath (Shebait) - Appellant
Versus
Abani Mohan Nath and Ors. - Respondent
R.S.A. No. 36 of 2004
Decided On : 24-01-2014
For the Appellant :Mr. A.C. Bhowmik, Sr. Advocate, Mr. D.C. Roy, Mr. R. Dutta, Mr. M.K. Roy, Advocates
For Respondents:Mr. S. Bhattacharji, Advocate
The judgment establishes the evidentiary value of record of rights and documentary evidence in determining ownership and possession of land, and emphasizes the limitations on claiming possession as a trespasser.
Headnote:
Specific Relief Act - Deity's Possession - Sections 34-38 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 - R.S. Khatian No. 273 - Uttam Kumar Sen & Ors. V. Gita Das Choudhury & Ors., (1998) 1 GLR 145 - Jattu Ram V. Hakam Singh & Ors., AIR 1994 SC 1653 - Kesho Prasad V. Mr. Bhagjogna Kuer, AIR 1937 PC 69(76) - Sopan Sukhdeo Sable & Ors. V. Assistant Charity Commissioner & Ors., (2004) 3 SCC 137 - TLR & LR Act, 1960 - Mahadeo Savlaram Shelke V. Pune Municipal Corpn., (1995) 3 SCC 33
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff, claiming to be the Sebayet of deity God Shiva, brought a suit for injunction against the defendants who were allegedly cutting down trees on the suit land. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff, but the appellate court reversed the decision based on the defendants' ownership claims supported by documentary evidence.
Finding of the Court:
The appellate court found in favor of the defendant-respondents, holding that they were the true owners of the suit land based on documentary evidence and the entries in the record of rights. The court also rejected the plaintiff's claim of possession and title over the land.
Issues: The issues included the maintainability of the suit, the forceful entry and tree cutting by the defendants, the plaintiff's possession of the land, and the relief entitled to the plaintiff.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the TLR & LR Act, 1960 and legal precedents to establish that the record of rights and documentary evidence can be used to determine ownership and possession of land. It also emphasized that a trespasser in possession has no right to claim possession against the true owner under Section 38 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.
Final Decision: The appellate court's decision was upheld, dismissing the second appeal and vacating the stay granted earlier.
JUDGMENT
U.B. Saha, J.:-This second appeal is preferred by the plaintiff-appellant against the judgment and decree dated 14.05.2004 and 21.05.2004 respectively passed by the learned Additional District Judge, North Tripura, Dharmanagar in Title Appeal No. 02 of 2004, wherein the learned appellate Court reversed the judgment and decree dated 07.02.2004 and 13.02.2004 respectively passed by the learned Civil Judge(Junior Division), Dharmanagar, North Tripura in Title Suit No. 6 of 2003. Heard Mr. D. C. Roy, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff-appellant as well as Mr. S. Bhattacharji, learned counsel appearing for the defendant-respondents.
2. One Smt. Kamala Nath, claimed herself to be the Sebayet of deity God Shiva, brought the suit in the name of deity for perpetual injunction restraining the respondents, who were defendants in the suit, and their men/agents from cutting down valuable trees standing on the suit land under Mouja-Bagbasa, Tehasil-Sanicherra Revenue circle and Sub-Division-Dharmanagar, North Tripura district under Khatian No. 16, appertaining to C.S. Plot No. 444, corresponding to R.S. Plot No. 505, a 'Debasthan', and from erecting bamboo fencing over the boundaries of the suit land and also from disturbing peaceful atmosphere. As the plaintiff-appellant was possessing the land, on 17.04.2003 at about 3 pm the defendant-respondents in the company of some antisocial persons being armed with dao, lathi, spade and some bamboo slips forcefully entered into the suit land by way of breaking the bamboo fencing along the southern boundary of the suit land and cutting down some jackfruit and other valuable trees standing there and tried to construct new bamboo fencing over the boundary of the suit land with a view to occupying the same. On being resisted by the Sebayet, who brought the suit on behalf of the deity, the defendant-respondents went away.
3. The respondent No. 6, who was the defendant No. 4 in the suit, did not contest the suit, whereas the other defendant-respondents contested the suit by way of filing a joint written statement, wherein they had alleged that there was no cause of action for the suit and that Smt. Kamala Nath not being the Sebayet has no locus-standi to file the suit and the suit is not maintainable in view of the prescription made in Sections 34-38 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.
4. The defendant-respondents' case before the learned Court below was that they have been owning and possessing the suit land as of their own on the basis of a valid sale deed from which they acquired title and that the plaintiff-appellant does not have any possession in respect of the suit land.
5. Upon considering the pleadings of the rival parties, the learned trial Court framed four issues, which are as under:
A. Is the suit maintainable in its present form?
B. Did the defendants forcefully enter into the suit land on 17.4.03 at about 3 pm, and cut down jack-fruit trees and other trees with a view to constructing a new boundary fencing occupying the suit land?
C. Is the plaintiff in possession of the suit land?
D. To what relief, if any, is the plaintiff entitled?
6. Both the parties adduced their oral as well as documentary evidences in support of their respective claim of possession and title. The learned trial Court decided all the issues in favour of the plaintiff-appellant and decreed the suit against the defendant-respondents restraining them and their agents from cutting down the valuable trees standing over the suit land and from erecting bamboo fencing over the boundaries of the suit land with a view to occupying the same and also from disturbing the peaceful atmosphere of the said 'Debasthan' and peaceful possession of the plaintiff.
7. Being aggrieved, the defendant-respondents preferred an appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, Dharmanagar, North Tripura and the learned Additional District Judge reversed the judgment of the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Dharmanagar, North Tripura
