Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA AT AGARTALA
T. S. Sivagnanam, J
Puspa Rani Das (Roy) v. Maya Rani Roy (Das)
Civil Appeal | T.S.(P)130 of 2017
Certainly. Here are the key points from the provided legal document:
The case involves a dispute over the ownership and partition of land originally belonging to a deceased individual, Benimadhab Roy, with the legal heirs being the respondent-plaintiffs and the appellants, who are the successors of Ram Dulal Roy (!) (!) .
The respondent-plaintiffs sought partition of the land, asserting their inheritance rights as legal heirs, while the appellants claimed rights based on possession and revenue records, which do not confer ownership (!) (!) .
The trial court examined the evidence, including revenue records (khatians), sale deeds, mutation reports, and other documents, concluding that revenue records do not establish ownership rights (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The trial court decreed the suit, granting each of the plaintiffs a one-third share of the land, and directed the parties to amicably partition the property or take further steps as necessary (!) (!) (!) .
The appellants argued that they were not properly notified or able to contest the suit due to lack of proper summons and that they possess rights through adverse possession, which was not adequately considered (!) (!) .
The respondent-plaintiffs contended that the appellants failed to produce valid title documents, and revenue records are not proof of ownership, emphasizing that the trial court's judgment was reasoned and based on the evidence (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The legal principle clarified that revenue records, such as khatians, do not confer or prove ownership rights, and adverse possession requires clear and unequivocal evidence of denial of the true owner's title and continuous hostile possession (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The court noted that the appellants did not produce any documentary evidence to establish exclusive ownership or adverse possession, and their claims were unsupported by the record (!) (!) (!) .
The court emphasized that possession of joint property by a co-sharer is presumed to be on behalf of all co-sharers unless there is clear evidence of ouster or denial of title, which was not demonstrated here (!) (!) (!) .
The appeal was dismissed, affirming the trial court's judgment, with the court stating that the findings were well-reasoned and supported by the evidence, and that the appellants' claims of adverse possession and exclusive ownership were not substantiated (!) (!) .
The court directed that the final decree should be passed after considering the report of the Survey Commissioner, with a possibility of conducting a fresh survey if necessary, within a specified timeframe (!) .
These points summarize the core legal findings, issues, and conclusions of the case based on the provided document.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. equal rights for heirs in inherited land. (Para 3 , 5) |
| 2. challenges to summons and the need for presenting evidence. (Para 6 , 7 , 12) |
| 3. clarification on adverse possession and lack of evidence. (Para 18 , 20) |
| 4. joint ownership implies possession rights unless ousted. (Para 19 , 21) |
1. This is an appeal under S.96 read with O.41 of CPC by the appellants against the judgment and preliminary decree dated 05.04.2022 delivered by Learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Court No.1, West Tripura, Agartala in connection with Case No.T.S.(P)130 of 2017.
2. Heard Mr. S. Pandit, Learned counsel appearing for the appellants as well as Mr. Samarjit Bhattacharjee, Learned counsel appearing for the respondent - plaintiffs. None appears on behalf of the proforma - respondent No.3.
3. Before proceeding with the merit of this appeal, let us discuss about the subject matter of the suit filed before the Learned Trial Court. The respondent - plaintiffs filed a partition suit before the Court of Learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Court No.1, West Tripura, Agartala seeking partition of the suit land as mentioned in schedule of the plaint. According to the respondent - plaintiffs, one Benimadhab Roy (since dead) was the father of the respondent - plaintiffs and one Ram Dulal Roy, the predecessor of the present appellants. Said Benimadhab Roy expired in the year 1986 leaving behind two daughters i.e. the respondent - plaintiffs herein and his son Ram Dulal Roy (since dead by this time) as his only legal heirs to succeed to his property as per law for inheritance and succession. After his death, his son and daughters inherited the said property in equal share. The respondent - plaintiffs in their plaint further alleged that on 08.01.2016 they requested Ram Dulal Roy, the predecessor of the present appellants for amicable partition of the suit land which was recorded in the name of said Ram Dulal Roy but in vain. After that, the respondent - plaintiffs filed petition for correction of ROR in respect of the suit land recorded in khatian Nos.1303/1 and 1303/2. It was further alleged that tehsildar of Uttar Champamura went for field enquiry but on 26.10.2017 said Ram Dulal Roy (since dead) threatened the plaintiffs. Thereafter, they filed the partition suit as alleged. On receipt of summons, said Ram Dulal Roy appeared and contested the same by filing written statement. In the written statement, said Ram Dulal Roy admitted that the suit land was belonging to his father and also admitted that the respondent - plaintiffs are also the legal heirs of said late Benimadhab Roy but Ram Dulal Roy questioned the maintainability of the suit and further submitted that record of right was prepared in his name on the basis of possession. So, no decree could be passed against him and finally prayed for dismissal of the suit with costs.
4. Upon the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the Learned Trial Court :
"I) Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form and nature ?
II) Whether there is any cause of action ?
III) Whether the suit is insufficiently stamped ?
IV) Whether the suit land is liable to be partitioned amongst the plaintiff and the defendants ?
V) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of cancellation of Khatian No - 1303/1 and 1303/2 ?
VI) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for a decree as prayed for ?
VII) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for any other relief / reliefs ?"
5. Thereafter, in the meantime the case was posted for evidence. By that time, said Ram Dulal Roy expired and his legal heirs were substituted i.e. the present appellants and the proforma - respondent and inspite of receiving summons they did not turn up before the Court and finally, on the basis of evidence on record of the respondent - plaintiffs and on perusal of the documentary evidence on record, the Learned Trial Court delivered the judgment. For the sake of convenience, I would like to mention herein below the name of witnesses of
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
