Back
2015 Supreme(Tri) 47
THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA AGARTALA
DEEPAK GUPTA, J.
Sri Karuna Mohan Pal and others - Appellants
Versus
Shri Ram Mohan Paul - Respondent
SAO No.2 of 2011
Decided On : 29.01.2015
Advocate Appeared:
For the appellants:Mr. D Chakraborty, Advocate, Mr. H Laskar, Advocate.
For the respondent:Mr. P Datta, Advocate.
The significance of adverse possession as a vital issue in property disputes and the relevance of leading evidence on this issue.
Headnote:
Adverse Possession - Property Dispute - Order XIV Rule 1 - The court discussed the framing of issues and the relevance of adverse possession in a property dispute. It highlighted the importance of adverse possession as a vital issue and upheld the lower appellate court's decision to reframe the issue and remand the case for denovo trial.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of his right, title, and interest over a land, seeking possession from the defendant. The defendant denied the plaintiff's claims and asserted adverse possession over the land.
Finding of the Court:
The court upheld the lower appellate court's decision to reframe the issues and remand the case for denovo trial, emphasizing the significance of adverse possession as a vital issue in the property dispute.
Issues: The main issue was the framing of issues based on the material propositions of fact or law affirmed by one party and denied by the other. The court also addressed the relevance of adverse possession and the necessity to lead evidence on this issue.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that issues arise when a material proposition of fact or law is affirmed by one party and denied by the other, and that adverse possession is a vital issue that goes to the root of the matter in a property dispute.
Final Decision: The appeal was rejected, and the case was remanded to the trial court for denovo trial based on the issues reframed by the appellate court.
This second appeal against order is directed against the judgment dated 15th March, 2011 passed the learned lower appellate Court i.e. Additional District Judge, North Tripura, Kamalpur, in Title Appeal No.1 of 2010, whereby he allowed the appeal of the defendant, set aside the decree of the learned trial Court and remanded the case back to the trial Court after framing fresh issues.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner-plaintiff filed a suit praying for declaration of his right, title and interest over the suit land and he also prayed that the defendant who was in possession of the suit land be directed to hand over possession of the land to the plaintiff.
3. According to the plaintiff, he was always in possession of the suit land but in the year 1980 at the request of the defendant he had permitted the defendant to take possession of the suit land as permissive possessor. He, therefore, claimed possession of the suit land on the basis of his title.
4. Written statement was filed by the defendant. In the said written statement all the averments made in the plaint were denied. It was specifically pleaded that Sri Ratish Ch. Paul, father of the defendant had been possessing the suit land since 1967 asserting his right, title and interest thereon peacefully, uninterruptedly and to the knowledge of all including the plaintiff openly and adversely denying their right, title and interest to the suit land. It was also stated that the statutory period of limitation had expired. The learned trial Court framed the following issues :
“i. Is there any cause of action for this suit? ii. Is the suit barred by the law of limitation? iii. Has the plaintiff right title interest over the suit land? What other relief/reliefs is the plaintiff entitled?”
The learned appellate Court after hearing the parties reframed the issues as follows :
“i. Is the suit maintainable in its present form?
ii. Is there any cause of action to institute the suit?
iii. Whether the plaintiff has any right title interest over the suit land?
iv. Whether the defendant has acquired any right title and interest over the suit land by way of adverse possession?
v. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get recovery of khash possession over the suit land?
vi. To what other relief/reliefs is the parties are entitled to?”
The main difference is that the learned lower appellate Court also framed an issue as to whether the defendant had acquired any right, title and interest over the suit land by way of adverse possession. He, therefore, keeping in view the fact that evidence would have to be led on this issue, remanded the case back for denovo trial. Aggrieved by this judgment, the plaintiff is before this Court.
5. The main point raised by Mr. D Chakraborty, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff-appellant, is that issues are required to be framed only on the material proposition of fact or law affirmed by one party and denied by the other and furthermore only those propositions are material propositions which a party to a suit must allege in order to show his right in the suit property. Reference has been made to Order XIV sub-rule (1) and (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure which read as follows :
“1. Framing of issues – (1) Issues arise when a material proposition of fact or law is affirmed by the one party and denied by the other. (2) Material propositions are those propositions of law or fact which a plaintiff must allege in order to show a right to sue or a defendant must allege in order to constitute his defence.”
The main contention of Mr. Chakraborty is that since the defendant has not filed a counter-claim claiming a decree for declaration of his right that he has become owner by way of adverse possession, no issue in this regard can be framed. On the other hand, Mr. P Datta submits that the learned lower appellate Court has rightly framed the issue since that arises out of the pleadings of the partie
