Back
2014 Supreme(Tri) 306
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
S.C. Das, J.
State of Tripura - Appellant
Versus
Mati Lal Bhowmik - Respondent
RSA No. 65 of 2005Decided On : 04-08-2014
For the Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff:D. Chakraborty, Sr. Advocate and H. Laskar, Advocate
For the Respondents/Defendant:D.C. Roy, Advocate
The burden of proof lies on the plaintiff to rebut the presumption about correctness of entries recorded in the finally published khatian under the TLR & LR Act.
Headnote:
TLR & LR Act - Declaration of title of the plaintiff in the suit land and cancellation of records of rights - Section 11(4), Section 43(3) - Summary: The court discussed the provisions of Section 11(4) of the TLR & LR Act regarding the limitation in filing a suit and the presumption about correctness of the entries recorded in the finally published khatian under Section 43(3). The court emphasized the burden of proof on the plaintiff to rebut the presumption and the requirement of documentary evidence to support claims under the Act.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff sought declaration of title in the suit land and cancellation of records of rights under Section 11(4) of the TLR & LR Act. The plaintiff claimed that the suit land was wrongly recorded as khas land and instituted the suit after a petition under Section 11(3) was dismissed by the Collector.
Finding of the Court:
The appellate Court reversed the trial court's decision, finding in favor of the plaintiff. The second appeal was dismissed, affirming the appellate Court's decision.
Issues: The issues included the maintainability of the suit, the rightful ownership of the suit land, the plaintiff's entitlement to relief, and the limitation in filing the suit.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the plaintiff had discharged the burden of proof to establish the rightful ownership of the suit land and that the suit was not barred by limitation.
Final Decision: The second appeal was found to be devoid of merit and dismissed, with parties bearing their own costs.
JUDGMENT
S.C. Das, J.:--1. This civil second appeal under Section 100 of CPC is directed against the appellate decree dated 18.09.2004 passed by learned Addl. District Judge, Court No. 2, West Tripura, Agartala in Title Appeal No. 36 of 2002, whereunder, the learned Addl. District Judge reversed the original judgment and decree dated 25.06.2002, passed by learned Civil Judge(Sr. Division), Court No. 1, West Tripura, Agartala, in Title Suit No. 117 of 1997.
2. Heard learned senior counsel, Mr. D. Chakraborty, assisted by learned counsel, Mr. H. Laskar for the appellants and learned counsel, Mr. D.C. Roy for the respondents.
3. By order dated 11.09.2006, the second appeal has been admitted for hearing on the following substantial questions of law:
“(i) Whether the learned first appellate court has correctly reversed the finding of the learned trial court by deciding the question of limitation in filing a suit under Section 11(4) of the TLR & LR Act?
(ii) Whether in view of the provision contained in Section 43(3) of the said Act regarding the presumption about correctness of the entries recorded in the finally published khatian, the onus to show existence of keyemi talluk No. 191 with respect to the suit land lies on the plaintiff-respondent to rebut such presumption?”
4. Monoranjan Nath(since deceased), the predecessor of respondents, as plaintiff(hereinafter mentioned as plaintiff) instituted Title Suit No. 117 of 1997 under Section 11(4) of the Tripura Land Revenue & Land Reforms Act, 1960(for short, TLR & LR Act) seeking declaration of title of the plaintiff in the suit land and further praying for cancellation of the records of rights prepared in the names of the defendants in respect of the suit land described in the Schedule of the plaint, measuring 36 drones 7 kanies of tilla and lunga class of lands of Kayemi Taluk No. 191, jote No. 820.
It is the case of the plaintiff that the suit land is the jote land belonged to the plaintiff and it was wrongly recorded as khas land at the time of survey and settlement operation and challenging such wrong recording of the suit land as khas land, the plaintiff moved revenue court of the Collector under Section 11(3) of the TLR & LR Act and that application of the plaintiff was registered as revenue case No. 8/1989 and by order dated 05.05.1997 the Collector dismissed the petition of the plaintiff and hence the plaintiff filed the suit seeking declaration and consequential relief.
5. In short, the case of the plaintiff is that, Rana Budhjung Bahadur, Ex-Chief Minister of Ex-Maharaja of Tripura, was the owner and/or Talukdar of Kayemi Taluk No. 191 of the then Revenue Mouja, “Uttar Debendra Cahndra Nagar”. Legal representatives of Rana Budhjung Bahadur by registered patta No. 1-20927 dated 21.09.1956(Exbt. 2) settled 7 drones(drone is a local measurement) of land and by registered patta No. 1-10465 dated 15.12.1957 (Exbt. 3) settled 70 drones of land and by registered patta No. 1-6232 dated 28.03.1959(Exbt. 4) settled 77 drones of land, totaling 154 drones of land in favour of the plaintiff. All those settlements of Taluka lands were held before the TLR & LR Act, 1960 came into force. The plaintiff paid nazarana and revenue to the Talukdar and on receipt of nazarana as well as revenue, the Talukdar executed the registered patta transferring the land classified as tilla and lunga in favour of the plaintiff. At that relevant point of time there was influx of refugees and the plaintiff from time to time sold out 117 drones and 9 kanies(kani is also a local measurement) to different 202 numbers of purchasers and handed over possession. Rest 36 drones 7 kanies of land left in the hand of the plaintiff. The settled land of the plaintiff was recorded in jote No. 820 of Kayemi Taluk No. 191. The plaintiff paid revenue of the settled land to the Talukdar and after the Taluka was vested in the State Government on coming into force of TLR & LR Act, 1960, w.e.f. 14.11.1961, the plaintiff automatically bec
