Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Ratan Mahato vs Smt. Bhabi Singh Sardar & Anr on 7 March, 2016
Author: Jyotirmay Bhattacharya
Bench: Jyotirmay Bhattacharya
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
APPELLATE SIDE
Present:
The Hon'ble Justice Jyotirmay Bhattacharya
AND
The Hon'ble Justice Sankar Acharyya
S.A.T. 233 of 2014
with
CAN 9057 of 2014
Ratan Mahato
versus
Smt. Bhabi Singh Sardar & Anr.
For the Appellant : Mr. D. P. Adhikari,
Mr. Jibanhari Mallick.
Heard On : 07-03-2016.
Judgement On : 07-03-2016.
Jyotirmay Bhattacharya, J. : This second appeal is directed against the
judgement and decree dated 29th March, 2014 passed by the learned Civil Judge
(Senior Division), Additional Court, Purulia in Title Appeal No. 38 of 2013 by
reversing the judgement and decree dated 26th July, 2012 passed by the learned
Civil Judge (Junior Division), Purulia in Title Suit No. 362 of 2004 at the instance
of the plaintiff/appellant.
Let us now consider the merit of the appeal to find out as to whether any
substantial question of law is involved in this appeal for which the appeal is
required to be admitted for hearing under the provision of Order XLI Rule 11 of
the Code of Civil Procedure or not.
The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of his title and for injunction. He
claimed that Moti Mura was the owner of the suit property. Pursuant to an oral
agreement made between the plaintiff and Moti Mura, the plaintiff paid a sum of
Rs.500/- being the consideration money for sale of the suit property in his favour
by Moti Mura. On acceptance of such consideration money, possession of the
suit property was delivered to the plaintiff by Moti Mura who ultimately could not
execute any deed of transfer as he subsequently became ill.
After the death of Moti Mura, his widow viz., Fulu Murani executed two
deeds of relinquishment viz., one on 23rd February, 1974 and another on 30th
May, 1975 by relinquishing her right, title and interest in favour of the plaintiff
and confirmed the sale of the suit property by her husband in favour of the
plaintiff. Thus, by virtue of the aforesaid two deeds of relinquishment, the
plaintiff claimed title in the suit property and he has also prayed for restraining
the defendants from disturbing his possession in the suit property.
The defendants contested the said suit by filing written statement denying
the allegations made out by the plaintiff in the said suit. The transfer made by
Fulu Murani has been challenged by the defendants since such transfer violates
the provision contained in Section 14C of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act,
1955 inasmuch as such transfer was alleged to have been made by a tribal in
favour of a non-tribal.
Learned Trial Judge after considering the pleadings of the parties and
evidence on record was pleased to decree the suit on contest by holding that the
plaintiff acquired title in the suit property by virtue of those deeds of
relinquishment and such transfer is not hit by the provision of Section 14C of the
West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955.
Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said decision of the learned
Trial Judge, the defendant/respondent preferred an appeal before the learned
first appellate court. The learned first appellate court was pleased to allow the said appeal by reversing the judgement and decree of the learned Trial Court. The learned first appellate court held that by virtue of two deeds of relinquishment, title cannot be transferred in favour of the transferee. The learned first appellate court thus held that since no title was validly transferred in favour of the plaintiff by virtue of those two deeds of relinquishment, the first appellate court need not consider as to whether such transfer was in violation of the provision of Section 14C of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955.
The legality and/or validity of the said judgement and decree of the learned first appellate court is under challenge in this second appeal at the instance of the plaintiff.
Mr. Adhikari, learned advocate appearing for the appellant submits before us that the effect of the transfer cannot be decided by looking at the nomenclature of the deeds itself. He contends that though the deeds were described as deeds of relinquishment, but, in fact, the deeds show that the right, title and interest of the recorded owner was, in fact, transferred in favour of the plaintiff on acceptance of consideration of Rs.500/- being the sale price. By relying upon a decision of this Hon'ble Court in the case of Satyesh Chandra Banerjee Vs. Sm. Rani Banerjee and others reported in AIR 1977 Cal. 509, he submits before us that where the operative part of the deed is unambiguous and it shows that the right, title and interest of the executant, in fact, was transferred in favour of the releasee, the learned first appellate court ought not to have held that no title in favour of the releasee was transferred by virtue of the said deeds of relinquishment.
Though we find no hesitation in accepting such submission of Mr. Adhikari that the effectiveness and/or operation of a deed cannot be decided merely by looking at the title and/or nomenclature of the deed and the effectiveness of such deed should be considered by looking at the intention of the parties for execution of such deed reflected in the deed itself and ultimately if it is found that the releasor, in fact, transferred his/her right, title and interest in the suit property on acceptance of consideration money and the deed was registered as per the provision of the Registration Act, then it should be held that right, title and interest of the transferor was validly transferred in favour of the transferee notwithstanding the fact that the deed was described as deed of relinquishment or not.
However, we cannot stop here as admittedly we find that here is the case where the right, title and interest in a land belonging to a member of scheduled tribe community was transferred to a non-tribal without any permission from the Revenue Officer in terms of the provision contained in Section 14C of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955.
Such being the position, we hold that even if we consider the deeds of relinquishment as deeds of transfer and title of Moti Mura and/or Fulu Murani stood transferred in favour of the plaintiff by virtue of those deeds of relinquishment, still then since such transfer was made in violation of the provision contained in Section 14C of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955, we hold that the transferee/releasee viz. the plaintiff herein did not and/or could not acquire any title in the suit property by virtue of those deeds.
Accordingly, we do not find involvement of any substantial question of law in this appeal for which the appeal is required to be admitted. We thus decline to admit this appeal for hearing under the provision of Order XLI Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
The appeal thus stands dismissed.
Re: CAN 9057 of 2014 (Stay) Since we have not admitted the appeal under the provision of Order XLI Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, no further order need be passed on the interim application for stay. The said application being CAN 9057 of 2014 is thus deemed to be disposed of.
(JYOTIRMAY BHATTACHARYA, J.) ( SANKAR ACHARYYA, J. ) dc.