HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA AGARTALA
T. Amarnath Goud, J.
Satya Ranjan Acharjee & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
Pratibha Paul & Ors. - Respondents
RSA 29 of 2018
Decided On : 17-02-2022
JUDGMENT
T. Amarnath Goud, J. - This is an appeal under Section 100 of the CPC, 1908 against the Judgment dated 18.05.2018 by the District Judge, Unakoti Judicial District, Kailashahar in Title Appeal No. 16 of 2017 dismissing the appeal, affirming the judgment and decree by the Civil Judge (Senior Division) Unakoti, Kailashahar in T.S. No. 17 of 2016.
2. The brief fact of the plaintiff's (the appellant herein) case inter-alia is that the suit land originally belonged to the father of the plaintiffs namely Sudhir Rn. Acharjee (now deceased). The suit land is homestead ('bastu') class of land & has a drain running from east to west for the purpose of drainage on the suit land. After the death of said Sudhir Rn. Acharjee, the plaintiffs and defendant No. 2 inherited the property and their name also got mutated in the khatian No. 634 of Mouja Birchandranagar. Subsequently, on 03-09-1997 the plaintiffs and defendant No. 2 sold 0.10 acres of land to the defendant No. 1 vide registered sale deed No. 1-1413 of 1997. Accordingly, the possession was also handed over. Eventually at one point of time the defendant No. 1 started construction on the suit land which as per the plaint, got competed in the year 2012. On 25-12-2012 the plaintiff came to know about this forceful encroachment of the suit land by the defendant No. 1 and on 03-05-2016 the defendant further occupied 0.01 acres of land on the southern side of 'A' schedule which is a drain and described in 'C' schedule of the plaint. Thereafter the plaintiffs requested the defendant to hand over the possession of the suit land but, to no result.
3. Thereafter, the appellant (the plaintiffs in TS 17 of 2016) instituted a title suit against the respondents (the defendants in TS 17 of 2016) praying for a decree declaring right, title and interest and recovery of possession of the suit land pertaining to Mouja Birchandranagar, Khatian (record of rights) No. 634, C.S. Plot Nos. 3356/3913, measuring -0.04 acres which is a part of land pertaining to the sam khatian No. 634, C.S. Plot NOs. 3355, 3356/3919, 3369, 3370 and measuring -1.01 acres. The suit land is described explicitly in schedule 'B' of the plaint. There are two more schedules 'A' & 'C'. The 'A' schedule of land is the total land of the plaintiff whereas 'B' & 'C' are part of it. The 'C' schedule of land pertains to the same khatian and is a drain of one feet length and measuring 0.01 acres of land. The plaintiff sought recovery of possession of land described in 'B' & 'C' schedule also.
4. For ready reference the Schedule 'A', 'B' and 'C' are reproduced herein under:
('A' Schedule)
District- Unakoti, Sub-Division - Kailashahar, Mouja-Birchandranagar, Khatian No. 634, C.S. Plot NOs., -3355, 3356/3919, 3369, 3370. Total Land measuring - 1.01 acres.
('B' Schedule)
District - Unakoti, Sub-Division- Kailashahar, Mouja-Birchandranagar, khatian No. 634, C.S. Plot Nos. 3356/3919, Total Land measuring 0.04 acres (Suit land under illegal possession of the defendant).
Bouded by- North - defendant
South - Plaintiffs
East- Plaintiffs
West - Kailashahar, Fatikroy Road.
('C' Schedule)
District- Unakoti, Sub-Division- Kailashahar, Mouja-Birchandranagar, khatian No. 634, there is a drain 1 fit length and running from East and West.
Bounded by - North - Bhuvan Singh
South - Defendant
East- Plaintiff
West- Kailashahar, Fatikroy Road
Within this boundary 0.01 acres of land. (In the sale deed bearing No. 1-1413 of 1997 it is mentioned that this drain will exist for passing water.)
5. The defendants the (respondent herein) herein filed the written statement. In the written statement so filed, it has been categorically stated by the respondents that the suit land along with other lands were originally belonged to Sudhir Ranjan Acharjee, the predecessors of the present defendant and others. After the death of Sudhir Ranjan Acharjee, the land was mutated in the name of heirs of Lt. Sudhir Ranjan Acharjee vide khatian No. 634, Mouja-Birchandranagar. The defendants have a
C. Doddanarayana and Others vs. C. Jayarama Reddy
D.N. Venkatarayappa vs. State of Karnataka (1997) 7 SCC 567)
Hemaji Waghaji Jat vs. Bhikhabhai Khengarghai Harijan
Karnataka Board of Wakf vs. Govt. of India (2004) 10 SCC 779
Navaneethammal vs. Arjuna Chetty (1996 6 SCC 166)
Parsinni vs. Sukhi (1993) 4 SCC 375
R. Chandevarappa & Others vs. State of Karnataka & Others (1995) 6 SCC 309
Ramanuja Naidu vs. vs. Kanniah Naidu (1996 3 SCC 392)
S.M. Karim vs. Bibi Sakinal AIR 1964 SC 1254
Taliparamba Education Society vs. Moothedath Mallisseri Illath M.N. (1997 4 SCC 484)
Wakf vs. Anjuman-E- Ismail Madris-Un-Niswan (1999) 6 SCC 343
Adverse possession requires the defendant to prove continuous, open, and hostile possession for the statutory period, which was not established in this case.
The court affirmed that adverse possession requires substantial proof that is open, continuous, and adverse to the true owner for over 12 years, emphasizing legal title must be established by clear e....
Adverse possession requires clear proof of hostile, open, and continuous possession; claims based on mere occupation without valid documents are insufficient.
The court reiterated that for a claim of adverse possession, continuous possession over 30 years must be proven explicitly; mere long possession without asserting hostile title does not suffice.
To claim adverse possession, one must establish continuous, open, and hostile possession for the statutory period, acknowledging the title of the true owner.
To establish adverse possession, one must demonstrate continuous and hostile possession against the true owner with intent to dispossess, which was not proven in this case.
The judgment emphasizes the legal principles of adverse possession, including the requirements of open, clear, continuous, and hostile possession, burden of proof, and the need for a substantial ques....
It is settled that necessary ingredients of adverse possession are required to be specifically pleaded and necessary factual foundation in support thereof is to be made out. Equally important is nece....
(1) Recovery of possession – Limitation – Suit based on title where plea of adverse possession had not been raised could not be barred by limitation on ground that it was filed after more than 12 yea....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.