Back
2016 Supreme(Tri) 170
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA, AGARTALA
S.C. DAS, J.
Shri Bhagirath Roy, S/o Late Bhupendra Kumar Roy & Ors. - Appellants
Vs.
Smti. Ila Das, D/o Late Sukhlal Das, W/o Shri Subhendu Sekhar Das & Ors. - Respondents
R.F.A. 1 OF 2009
Decided On : 06-12-2016
For the Appellants :Mr. D. Chakraborty, Sr. Advocate, Mr. D.K. Biswas, Mr. H. Laskar, Mr. G.K. Nama, Advocates.
For the Respondents:Mr. S.M. Chakraborty, Sr. Advocate, Ms. B. Chakraborty, Advocate.
Possession follows title and mere possession for any period cannot confer title to the possessor unless the possessor denies the title of the rightful owner and continues in possession with hostile assertion of right.
Headnote:
Limitation - Recovery of Possession - Article 65 of Schedule-1 to the Limitation Act, Section 27 of the Limitation Act - The court held that the suit for recovery of possession was not barred by limitation as the defendants' possession did not become adverse to the plaintiffs. The right of the plaintiffs was not extinguished after the elapse of 12 years from the date of purchase by the defendants' predecessor. The court also emphasized that possession follows title and mere possession for any period cannot confer title to the possessor unless the possessor denies the title of the rightful owner and continues in possession with hostile assertion of right.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs sought declaration of title and recovery of possession of the suit land. The defendants contested the suit, claiming ownership based on a purchase deed. The trial court decided in favor of the plaintiffs, decreeing the suit. The defendants appealed the decision.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the suit was not barred by limitation and that the plaintiffs were entitled to recovery of possession based on their title over the suit land. The court dismissed the appeal with costs.
Issues: The issues included the maintainability of the suit, cause of action, limitation, right, title, and interest over the suit land, permissive possession, non-joinder of necessary parties, and the binding nature of a previous court decision.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that possession follows title and that mere possession for any period cannot confer title to the possessor unless the possessor denies the title of the rightful owner and continues in possession with hostile assertion of right. The court also highlighted that the right of the plaintiffs was not extinguished after the elapse of 12 years from the date of purchase by the defendants' predecessor.
Final Decision: The court upheld the trial court's decision, finding in favor of the plaintiffs and dismissing the appeal with costs.
In this appeal, filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the appellants challenged the judgment and decree dated 21.11.2008 passed by learned Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Dharmanagar, North Tripura in Title Suit No.3 of 2008.
2. Heard learned counsel Mr. D.K. Biswas for the appellants and learned Sr. counsel, Mr. S.M. Chakraborty assisted by learned counsel, Ms. B. Chakraborty for the respondents.
3. The respondents, as plaintiffs (hereinafter mentioned as plaintiffs), instituted Title Suit No. 03 of 2008 in the Court of Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Dharmanagar seeking declaration of title and recovery of possession of the suit land described in the schedule of the plaint.
4. It is inter alia contended by the plaintiffs that their father Sukhlal Das (since deceased) while was residing in the then East Pakistan in the year 1950 sent money to his younger brother Hiralal Das who was working as S.I. of Police and was living in the State of Tripura to purchase landed property for him (Sukhlal) in Tripura and accordingly Hiralal Das purchased two kanies of land from one Rajendra Kumar Chakraborty by a registered Deed of purchase but the purchase was not made in the name of Sukhlal but it was made in the name of Hiralal himself. Subsequently Sukhlal also came to Tripura and started residing on the land purchased by Hiralal and started living there land by constructing dwelling house. Sukhlal Das also purchased another 11 gandas of land from one Watir Ali and his brother Chatir Ali by a registered Deed of purchase dated 01.01.1951. In the year 1951 another brother of Sukhlal namely Makhanlal Das was also came to Tripura from erstwhile East Pakistan and started living with Sukhlal. In the year 1963 said Makhanlal and Hiralal created disturbance claiming the property of Sukhlal and so Sukhlal instituted Title Suit No.5 of 1963 against Makhanlal Das and Hiralal Das in the Court of Additional Subordinate Judge, Agartala and the suit was decreed in favour of Sukhlal by judgment and decree dated 19.12.1964. It was declared that the plaintiff Sukhlal was the exclusive owner of the suit land having jote right and that the defendants had no right, title and interest over the suit land. The land owned by Sukhlal was mutated in his name and Khatian No.2269 and 2270 of Mouja Dharmanagar Town was created. In the subsequent survey and settlement operation, Khatian No.4277 and 4278 of Mouja Dharmanagar Town was created in the name of the plaintiffs for a total area of land measuring 0.591 acre.
In the year 1977, Hiralal Das having no right, title and interest over the suit land, by a registered Deed No.1-400 dated 04.02.1977 sold out land measuring 0.32 acres to one Bhupendra Roy, the predecessor of the defendant-appellants (hereinafter mentioned as defendants) beyond the knowledge of the plaintiffs and created record or right in respect of that land. It is contended by the plaintiffs that Hiralal had no right, title over the said land and so the Sale-deed was a nullity and not binding upon the plaintiffs. In the last survey and settlement operation, Khatian No.4277 was prepared in the name of the plaintiffs and the defendants were shown as permissive possessor in respect of the suit land of Dag No.5512, 5513, 5514 and 5516. The plaintiffs requested the defendants to vacate the suit land to which the defendants took time but ultimately did not vacate the suit land. The defendants were allowed time upto 31st December, 1997 but by that date the defendants did not vacate the suit land and on 01.01.1998 the defendants denied to vacate the suit land and, therefore, the plaintiffs instituted the suit seeking declaration of right, title, interest and recovery of possession.
5. The appellants, (hereinafter mentioned as defendants) by filing written statement contested the suit denying the averments made in the plaint and contend
