Gauhati High Court
Reba Kanta Boro vs Dalima Das & Ors on 7 October, 2015
Author: A.K. Goswami
Bench: A.K. Goswami
1
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
RSA No. 139/2006
Sri Reba Kanta Boro,
S/o Lt. Maya Ram Boro,
R/o Mazgaon Hatbhanga Chuburi,
Mouza-Bhairabped,
P.O. & P.S. Tezpur,
District-Sonitpur, Assam.
- Appellant
- Versus -
1. Smti. Dalimi Das,
W/o Danda Das,
2. Smti. Khiroda Das,
W/o Kanai Das
Both are resident of Mazgaon, Mouza-
Bhairabped, P.O. & P.S. Tezpur,
District- Sonitpur, Assam.
- Respondents
Advocates:
For the Appellant : Mr. J. Ahmed, Advocate.
For the Respondents : Mr. S. Sahu, Advocate.
Dates of hearing : 29.9.2015, 30.9.2015, 06.10.2015 and 07.10.2015.
Date of judgment : 07.10.2015
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. GOSWAMI
JUDGMENT AND ORDER
(ORAL)
Heard Mr. J. Ahmed, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. S. Sahu, learned counsel for the respondents.
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 27.1.2006 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sonitpur, at Tezpur, in Title Appeal No. 9/2000 dismissing the appeal and affirming the judgment and decree dated 13.3.2000 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) No. 2, Sonitpur, at Tezpur, in Title Suit No. 69/1981, whereby the suit of the plaintiffs was dismissed.
RSA 139/2006 2
3. The second appeal was admitted to be heard by an order dated 17.7.2014 on the following substantial questions of law:
"1. Whether the first appellate Court was justified in confirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial court which had dismissed plaintiff's suit for declaration of right, title and interest in the suit land?
2. In the absence of any discussion, finding and much less appreciation of evidence made by the first appellate Court on material issue No. 8, 9 and 11 and specially issue No. 8, whether lower appellate Court was justified in simply confirming the finding of the trial court on these issues?
3. Whether lower appellate Court was justified in holding that plaintiff was not able to establish his right, title and interest on the suit land without there being any discussion much less appreciation of pleadings/evidence adduced by the plaintiff to prove his title over the suit land?
4. Whether lower appellate Court was justified in holding that defendants were able establish their right, title and interest on the suit land by proving their adverse possession and if so whether there was proper pleading and evidence on record to give such finding in defendant's favour for conferring title on the strength of adverse possession?"
4. During the course of hearing, two more substantial questions of law were formulated and they read as follows:
"5. Whether the learned courts below were correct in holding in issue No. 2 that the suit of the plaintiffs is barred by limitation?
6. Whether the impugned judgment of the lower appellate court is a judgment in terms of Order 41 Rule 31 CPC?"
5. The plaintiff Nos. 1 and 2 are the sons of late Maya Ram Koch and the plaintiff No. 3, Duleswari, is Maya Ram's daughter. Maya Ram Koch was son of Mossai. Mossai had two brothers, namely, Motia and Tahi. Tahi had no heir. Proforma defendant No. 3 is the son of RSA 139/2006 3 Kolai. Kolai had another son by the name of Phanidhar, who expired and his sons, Lalit and Mukut are arrayed as proforma defendant Nos. 4 and 5. The plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration of right, title and interest over Schedule-A and B land and for prohibitory injunction. The pleaded case of the plaintiffs is that Schedule-A land measuring 2 bigha and 18 lechas covered by Dag No. 385(old) 404 (new) of Patta No. 21 (old) 144 (new) of Mazgaon under Mouza-Bhairabpad in the district of Sonitpur, with a specific boundary, was divided pursuant to a mutual arrangement entered into by and between Kolai, son of Motia, and Maya Ram Koch. Maya Ram Koch took 2/3rd portion of Schedule-A land on the western side and Kolai got 1/3rd in the eastern portion of the land and accordingly, the plaintiffs and the proforma defendants are possessing their respective portions of the land. It is stated that on 24.9.1981, the plaintiffs came to know that the defendant Nos. 1 and 2, who had no manner of right, title and interest over Schedule-A land, was offering 3 katha 13 lechas of land for sale, which is described in Schedule-B to the plaint forming 2/3rd of the western portion. Apprehending foul play, Record of Rights were inspected and the draft Jamabandi revealed that the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 surreptitiously got their names mutated as co-owners in respect of 3 katha 13 lechas of land out of the total land in the patta. Previous Jamabandi disclosed mutation in the name of one Ghana Kanta Das followed by the name of Gagan Chandra Das. Gagan Chandra Das is the son of late Ghana Kanta Das. Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 are the daughters of Ghana Kanta Das. It is averred that neither the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 nor their predecessors-in-interest at any point of time owned or possessed the Schedule-A land. It is further averred that mutation granted to Ghana Kanta Das, Gagan Chandra Das and the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 had been obtained fraudulently.
Schedule-B was not reproduced in the plaint annexed with the Memo of appeal.
6. The defendant Nos. 1 and 2 filed written statement taking various pleas including that the suit is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties. It is pleaded that the sisters of the plaintiffs (Duleswari and Bhadra, though they are not named), the wife of late Phanidhar Das and their four daughters as well as the brother of defendants, namely, Gagan RSA 139/2006 4 Chandra Das are necessary parties. It is averred that Kolai had no relation with the suit land and he also did not have any possession over the suit land. It is not correct that 2/3rd land fell in the share of Maya Ram Koch and 1/3rd land in the eastern side fell in the share of Kolai. It is stated that Kolai married the sister of Maya Ram. The averments regarding amicable settlement between Maya Ram and Kolai and possession of the plaintiffs and the pro forma defendants over the suit land were also denied. The allegations that the defendants tried to dispossess the plaintiffs from the suit property or that the plaintiffs came to know about the mutation on 24.9.1981, after obtaining the certified copy, are stated to be concocted. It is averred that Ghana Kanta Das and subsequently, his son Gagan Chandra Das and the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 are in possession of the suit land and mutation was rightfully granted. It is also averred that Ghana Kanta Das got mutation over the suit land in the year 1922 and was possessing the suit land continuously without any interruption and against the interest of all others and their possession was open, hostile and to the knowledge of all concerned for the last 60 years or so and therefore, they have acquired the right, title and interest by virtue of adverse possession and the right of the plaintiffs or any other person no longer survives.
7. It must be pointed out at this stage that the defendants had set up the plea of adverse possession primarily in Paragraph 15. The translated copy of the written statement annexed with the Memorandum of Appeal does not correctly reproduce the statements made in the vernacular version. The translated version of Paragraph 15 reads as follows:-
"15. That the father of the defendants got his name mutated in the year 1922 and since then he was in possession of the suit land peacefully in the knowledge of the plaintiffs. Thereafter, the answering defendants and their peaceful possession is not less than 60 years and they got the ownership right by virtue of adverse possession in the suit land."
8. An additional written statement was filed consequent upon amendment of plaint. By way of amendment, Motia was stated to be survived by his daughter Dumuni, who was married to Kolai. Duleswari, daughter of Maya Ram was arrayed as proforma defendant No. 6. In the RSA 139/2006 5 additional written statement, the defendant objected to Duleswari being arrayed as proforma defendant No. 6. It is averred that Dumuni is not made a party and Bhadra's heirs are also not impleaded as parties. By another amendment of the plaint, Duleswari was impleaded as plaintiff No. 3. After the plaint was amended for the second time, another written statement was filed by the defendants denying the fact the Dumuni was a daughter of Motia and it was also denied that Bhadra died before the death of Maya Ram Koch.
9. Khagendra Bora, plaintiff No. 2, having died, his heirs were substituted vide amendment effected on 12.5.1994 and a further additional written statement was filed by the defendants stating that heirs of Khagendra Bora also did not have right, title and interest and they also did not have any possession.
10. The present appeal is preferred only by the original plaintiff No. 1. The pro forma defendants have also been eliminated from the array of parties in this case. The other plaintiffs are not impleaded as pro forma respondents.
11. Upon the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial court framed the following issues:
"1. Whether there is any cause of action for this suit?
2. Whether the suit is barred by limitation?
3. Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form?
4. Whether the suit is barred U/s 34 of Specific Relief Act?
5. Whether the suit is barred by waiver, estoppel and acquiescence?
6. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties?
7. Whether the defendant and their father had been possessing the suit land actively for more than the statutory period in their own right?
8. Whether the plaintiffs have right, title and possession over the suit land?
9. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to get any decree as prayed for?
10. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to get compensatory cost of Rs. 3000/- u/s 35 A of C.P.C.?
11. To what other reliefs, if any, plaintiffs are entitled to?"
RSA 139/2006 6
12. The plaintiffs examined three witnesses besides exhibiting some documents and the defendants examined four witnesses and exhibited some documents.
13. The learned trial court while discussing issue No. 1 held that the evidence of PW 1 belied the contentions raised in the plaint that there was family arrangement between Maya Ram Koch and Kolai. On the basis of the evidence of PW 1, it was held that in the mutation case filed by Gagan in the year 1958-59 in respect of Schedule-B land, Maya Ram Koch had raised objection and, accordingly, opined that the case projected by the plaintiffs that they came to know about the mutation of the names of the defendants on 24.9.1981 is false. On the basis of evidence of PW 2, who is the pro forma defendant No. 3, it was opined that the plaintiffs knew about such mutation since their childhood and, accordingly, held that there was no cause of action for the suit. Issue No. 2 was also decided against the plaintiffs by holding that the plaintiffs' right to sue accrued in the year 1958 and as such the suit having been filed in the year 1981, the same is barred under Article 58 of the Limitation Act.
14. The learned trial court in Issue No. 3 held that the plaintiffs failed to substantiate the family arrangement over Schedule-A land and that Schedule-A land is jointly held by the heirs of Maya Ram and Dumuni. It was noted that Bhadra's heirs are not made parties and that the wife of Phanidhar and his daughters, who also have share in the Schedule-A land as the heirs of Dumuni and Kolai, were not impleaded as plaintiffs in the suit. Pro forma defendant Nos. 3 to 5 (wrongly written as 1 to 6) should have been impleaded as plaintiffs instead of being impleaded as defendants as all the above persons are co-owners of Schedule-A land. Accordingly, it was held that the suit was not maintainable as the plaintiffs could not be considered to be owner of Schedule-A land. While deciding Issue No. 4, it was recorded that the defendants are in possession of the suit land and the plaintiffs had not prayed for the relief of khas possession and, accordingly, it was held that the suit was barred under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act. The learned trial Court decided Issue No. 6 by holding that in absence of the co-sharers of the plaintiffs, the suit for declaration is not maintainable. The learned trial Court in Issue No. 7 held that the defendants were possessing the land adversely to the RSA 139/2006 7 interest of the plaintiffs. In Issue No. 8, it was held that the plaintiffs have no right, title, interest and possession in respect of the suit land. It was reiterated that the plaintiffs had failed to prove partition of Schedule-A land and all heirs were not made parties.
15. The learned lower appellate court concurred with the findings of the learned trial court.
16. Mr. J. Ahmed, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the learned courts below were not correct in holding that the plaintiffs could not establish amicable arrangement between Maya Ram Koch and Kolai, and PW2, who is son of Kolai, had deposed that Maya Ram had 2/3rd share in Schedule-A land. In that view of the matter, even if Phanidhar's wife and his daughters were not made parties, it cannot be said that the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. The pro forma defendants, who were legal representatives of Kolai, had not filed any written statement denying the contentions of the plaintiffs. It is submitted by Mr. Ahmed that the plaintiffs were in possession and the learned trial Court misread the evidence of PW1 inasmuch as PW1 did not state in his evidence that Maya Ram had contested the mutation proceeding and he also nowhere stated in his evidence that the defendants were in possession. It is submitted by him that the plaintiffs were compelled to file the suit only when they could learn that the defendants were trying to sell out the Schedule-B property and, therefore, the learned courts below committed error of law in holding that the suit was barred by limitation. He has also submitted that mutation is one thing and actual possession is another and the case of the plaintiffs is that the plaintiffs are in possession and the aspect of mutation was not known to the plaintiffs and, therefore, limitation will not begin to run from 1958-59 and, as such, the suit was filed very much within the period of limitation. He contends that there is no evidence of the defendants to constitute a claim of adverse possession. He has also submitted that there is a reference in the evidence of DW1 that she has got possession over the land under Dag No. 386 and, thus, claim of adverse possession is unfounded. It is also submitted that the learned lower appellate court also did not apply its mind independently and merely affirmed the judgment of the learned trial Court and, as such, the impugned judgment of the learned lower Appellate Court is not a judgment within the meaning of Order 41 Rule 31 RSA 139/2006 8 CPC. He has also submitted that the learned lower Appellate Court did not advert to the issue of right, title and interest of the plaintiffs in the right perspective. Mr. Ahmed also submits that the court has got the power to mould the relief and even if Bhadra's heirs had not been impleaded as plaintiffs or pro forma defendants, the court can mould the relief by granting appropriate relief to them also.
17. Mr. Sahu, learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the respondents/defendant Nos. 1 and 2 and their predecessor were in possession of the suit land from the year 1922 and the name of Ghana Kanta was mutated in the year 1922. He has submitted that the name of Gagan was mutated in respect of 3 Katha 13 Lecha of land in Dag No. 385, which is the disputed land, and that obtaining mutation in itself is an overt act demonstrating hostile possession against the true owner. Drawing attention of the court to Ext.-Ka, order dated 04.12.1958 granting mutation in favour of Gagan Chandra Das, learned counsel for the respondents submits that Maya Ram Koch was an objector in the said mutation proceeding. The fact of grant of mutation in favour of Gagan was also known to the plaintiffs from their childhood as would be evident from the evidence of PW2 and, therefore, the suit was barred by limitation and that the defendants had acquired title by adverse possession. Though the plaintiffs proclaimed that they were in possession, no independent witness was examined on behalf of the plaintiffs to support their case and, on the contrary, the defendants had examined DW2 and DW3 (Gaonburah), who are persons of the locality and they, in unequivocal terms deposed that the suit land was in possession of the defendants for more than 60 years and they have been utilizing and looking after the suit property and that they had not seen the possession of plaintiffs all these years. It is submitted that the plaintiffs had not also examined Ramen Baruah, whom the defendants allegedly proposed to sell the suit land and that the plaintiffs tried to engineer a cause of action where there existed none. He also submits that the plaintiffs had not also prayed for cancellation of mutation, which is a consequential relief and no prayer was also made either for confirmation of possession or for recovery of possession.
RSA 139/2006 9
18. It is further submitted by Mr. Sahu that it is not that the learned lower appellate Court simply affirmed the findings of the learned trial Court, but the learned lower appellate Court had also adverted to the materials on record in recording its findings. Once the issue relating to limitation is decided against the plaintiffs and a finding is recorded that the defendants were in adverse possession of the suit land beyond the statutory period, the argument that there was no elaborate discussion on the right, title and interest of the plaintiffs pales into insignificance, he submits.
19. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the materials on record.
20. PW 1 is the present appellant. In his evidence he had stated that Ghana Kanta had resided on a plot of land which was taken by him from his grand-father. He stated that he was not aware on what basis his grand-father had given the plot of land to Ghana Kanta. He had also stated in his evidence the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 had proposed to sell about 3 katha of suit land to one Rajat Barua and, on being protested by him, there was an altercation which compelled him to file a Section 144 Cr.P.C. proceeding. Vide Ext. 4, 3 katha 13 lecha of land was mutated in 1958 in the name of Gagan Chandra Das by way of inheritance from Ghana Kanta. He had admitted in his cross-examination that there was a case between Maya Ram and Gagan relating to mutation. But Mr. Ahmed is correct in submitting that there was no admission on his part that the defendants were in possession or that Maya Ram had contested the proceeding. However, Ext.-Ka goes to show that Maya Ram had contested the proceeding and, thus, was aware of the fact of mutation.
21. PW2 had deposed, amongst others, that 2/3rd land of Mossai, in the western side of Schedule-A land was given to Maya Ram and that Ghana Kanta had purchased some land outside the suit land from Mossai, which is located to the northern side of the suit land, which is a `Bari' land where there are bamboo and other trees. He also deposed that Bhadra's children are alive. He had also stated that he knew from his childhood that Ghana Kanta had mutated the suit land in his name and that PW1 and plaintiff No. 2 also knew about the same RSA 139/2006 10 since their childhood. In the year 1985, when PW 2 had deposed, he was 55 years old. In the year 1984, when PW 1 had deposed, he was 61 years old. Thus, PW1 was born on or about the year 1922-23 and PW2 around the year 1930. By the year 1959-60, when the mutation in the name of Gagan had taken place in presence of Maya Ram, they were in their adult-hood. Thus, the plea that the plaintiffs were not aware of mutation has no substance.
22. Plaintiff No. 1 had deposed that a number of persons, who were identified, had seen the defendants trying to raise boundary in the disputed land. But he had not specifically spoken about any dispossession as such though held as such by the learned trial Court. None of such persons, who the plaintiffs claim had seen them in possession, had been examined to buttress their contention that they were in possession of the suit land.
23. DW 1 had stated that the disputed land is in the possession of the defendants and their predecessors since 1922. There were bamboo and other trees in the suit land and they are looking after and utilizing the same on regular basis and the plaintiffs had never cut any trees or bamboos standing on the suit land measuring 3 Katha 13 Lecha. It was stated by him that the suit land was purchased by her father but all documents were stolen after her father had expired.
24. DW 2 was aged about 70 years at the time of his deposition and he had stated that the disputed land was in possession of Ghana Kanta and thereafter his daughters and that Reba Kanta and Khagendra had no possession whatsoever. He had stated that the land was given by Maya Ram, but on what basis he was not aware of.
25. DW 3 is the Government Gaonbura (village headman) of Mazgaon village and his residence is situated near the disputed land. He had deposed that the suit land is in possession of the defendants for the last 50/60 years and the defendants had been maintaining the same and that at no point of time, during the aforesaid period, the plaintiffs had possession over the suit land. DW 4 is the Registered Kanangoo of the Deputy Commissioner's office. He deposed on the basis of the Chitha that name of Ghana Kanta was mutated along with Mossai, Maya Ram etc. RSA 139/2006 11
26. It appears from the evidence that Dumuni was the daughter of Motia and she died when she was studying in Class V/VI. Gagan Chandra Das, brother of defendant Nos. 1 and 2, had also died before the suit was filed.
27. It appears from the materials on record that the defendants were in possession. No independent witnesses were examined by the plaintiffs regarding their alleged possession. The plaintiffs had also suggested DW1 that they had dispossessed the plaintiffs on 23.09.81. By the aforesaid suggestion the plaintiffs sought to indicate that only on 23.09.81 they came to be dispossessed. The aforesaid suggestion is of great significance as by the said suggestion the plaintiffs had admitted possession of the defendants from 23.09.81. However, there is no prayer for recovery of possession.
28. Though in one part of the evidence of DW1, she had stated that she is in possession of land covered by dag No. 386, the same will not go to show that she was in possession of dag No. 386 alone as her evidence has to be looked in its entirety. There are other lands where the defendants are also in possession. Though DW1 had also stated that land was purchased and the sale papers were lost, that will not materially alter the complexion of the case inasmuch as the evidence on record goes to show that the defendants are asserting their right over the suit land for a period of time, which is much beyond the statutory period.
29. Going by the translated version of the written statement, one may be pursuaded to opine that necessary pleadings are totally lacking with regard to adverse possession. But, as it was pointed out in the earlier part of the judgment, material part of the pleadings in respect of adverse possession was somehow omitted in translated version in paragraph 15 and, going by the averments made in paragraph 15 in the vernacular version, I am of the considered opinion that there are pleadings in respect of adverse possession. Evidence is also not lacking to substantiate the same.
30. The plaintiffs were aware of the mutation of the name of the father of the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 in the year 1922 during their childhood. It is argued by Mr. Ahmed that mutation was wrongly given and Ghana Kanta and his successors were not entitled to have their names RSA 139/2006 12 mutated. Applying for mutation is an overt act to demonstrate that he is the rightful owner and is in possession of the land. It cannot be said that mutation of the names of the defendants did not cloud the right, title and interest of the plaintiffs. Maya Ram did not take any step though he had contested the mutation proceeding in the year 1959 when Gagan's name was mutated. Such action of the defendants is an act of hostile possession. Suit was filed in the year 1981 on the purported cause of action that the defendants were planning to sell the suit land, that too, without any prayer for consequential relief in the form of cancellation of mutation and for recovery of possession. In view of the above, I am in agreement with the learned courts below that the suit was filed beyond the period of limitation.
31. The judgment of the learned lower appellate Court is a judgment of affirmation and the learned lower Appellate Court had adverted to the materials on record as a whole, though may not be strictly on the basis of an issue-wise discussion. I am inclined to accept the submission of Mr. Sahu that the plea of limitation and right of adverse possession having been decided in favour of the defendants, there was really nothing much to discuss about the right, title and interest of the plaintiffs. Even if it is held that plaintiffs could prove the family arrangement, in the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the discussions above, no declaration of right, title and interest can be granted in favour of the plaintiffs.
32. In view of the above, I am of the considered opinion that no interference with the judgments of the learned courts below is called for in this appeal and, accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. Substantial questions of law are answered against the appellant. No cost.
33. Registry will send back the records.
JUDGE RK RSA 139/2006 13 RSA 139/2006