SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Tri) 8

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

Advocates appeared:
S.M. Chakraborty, Sr. Adv. and A. Pal, Advocate, for the Appellant; Somik Deb, Sr. Adv. and Raju Datta, Advocate, for the Respondents

Adverse possession requires the defendant to prove continuous, open, and hostile possession for the statutory period, which was not established in this case.

Headnote:(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Section 100 - Suit for recovery of possession - Appeal against dismissal of title suit due to failure to prove date of dispossession - Plaintiff alleged ownership of suit land inherited from predecessor and sought recovery from defendant - Defendant claimed adverse possession and did not deny plaintiff's title. (Paras 1, 3, 12, 24)

(B) Adverse Possession - Essential elements include proof of actual possession, duration, and denial of ownership - Burden on defendant to prove adverse possession, which was not established in this case. (Paras 7, 24)

(C) Limitation - Suit filed within the permissible period - Plaintiff's claim of dispossession recognized but not adequately proven, affecting recovery. (Para 15)

Facts of the case:
The suit land was homestead land originally belonging to the plaintiff's deceased father. Plaintiffs alleged wrongful encroachment by the defendant after construction began on the suit land. (Paras 1-3)

Findings of Court:
The trial and appellate courts dismissed the suit, concluding the plaintiff could not establish the date of dispossession or continuous adverse possession by the defendant. (Paras 12-13)

Issues: Main issues included whether the suit was maintainable, whether the plaintiff established possession since 1997, and if the defendant forcibly occupied the land. (Paras 6, 7)

Ratio Decidendi: The court established that the defendant failed to demonstrate adverse possession, and the plaintiff's title was acknowledged. The decision emphasized that evidence must substantiate claims of dispossession and adverse shows. (Paras 24)

Result: Appeal allowed, suit decreed in favor of the plaintiff.

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

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top