=========================================================== Mahadeo Kumar & Ors v. Shakuntala Devi & Ors
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA First Appeal No.701 of 1978 Against the judgment and decree dated 27.6.1978 passed by 3rd Additional Subordinate Judge, Bhagalpur in Title Suit No. 38 of 1971. =========================================================== Mahadeo Kumar & Ors .... .... Plaintiffs/Appellants Versus Shakuntala Devi & Ors .... .... Defendants/Respondents =========================================================== Appearance : For the Appellants : Mr. Dhruv Narayan, Sr. Advocate. Mr. Dinesh Prasad Verma, Advocate with him. For the Respondent 1st Set : Mr. Siwanand Prasad Sinha, Advocate. Mr. Uday Shankar Saran Singh, Advocate. For the respondent 2nd Set : Mr. Anil Kumar Chaudhary, Advocate. Mr. Arun Kumar Prasad, Advocate. Mr. Jagannath Singh, Advocate. =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MUNGESHWAR SAHOO CAV JUDGMENT Date: 07-05-2013 1. The plaintiffs appellants have filed this first appeal against the judgment and decree dated 27.6.1978 passed by the learned 3rd Additional Subordinate Judge, Bhagalpur in Title Suit No. 38 of 1971 dismissing the plaintiffs appellants’ suit. 2. The plaintiffs appellants filed the aforesaid suit for declaration of their title only. The suit property has been described in Schedule- D i.e. Khata No. 29 measuring 8 bigha 12 kattha 16 dhur and Khata No. 412 measuring 9 bigha 16 kattha 5 dhur in village Sonbarsa and schedule-C i.e. Khata No. 191 measuring 14 bigha 8 kattha 12 dhur Patna High Court FA No.701 of 1978 dt.07-05-2013 2 of village Bikrampur. According to the plaintiffs the suit lands were recorded in the name of ancestors of the plaintiffs and since then the plaintiffs are in possession. The suit lands were subjected to aluvion and diluvion in the river Ganges. In the year 1947 some portion of land of village Bikrampur came out of the water and likewise the land of village Sonbarsa became cultivable in the year 1955-56 since after
Legal Reasoning
1948-49. The plaintiffs’ ancestors Raj Kumar and Maharaj Kumar were two brothers of joint family. Rajkumar died much prior to 1923 in jointness. The sons of Maharajkumar remained joint after death of Mahraj Kumar in 1932 – 33. In 1934 his son Yamuna Kumar also died. Dhaneshwar Kumar died in 1945-46. Mitthu Kumar and others mortgaged Khata No. 191 of Bikrampur village and khata No. 29 of Sonbarsa on 26.9.1923 for Rs.700/- in favour of brother of Gudari Kumar namely Kutai Kumar. Both the brothers were joint at that time. After death of Dhaneshwar the defendant started looting the crops of the land. Subsequently 144 Cr.P.C. proceeding was initiated. The defendants had neither title nor possession over the suit property and the claim of the defendants regarding auction sale, rent suit and purchase settlement etc. are false and concocted. 3. The contesting defendant No.7, 9, 12, 13 and 14 filed written statement. Their defence in short is that the defendant Nos. 1, 2, 7, 12, 13 and 14 are not joint and they are residing separately and they Patna High Court FA No.701 of 1978 dt.07-05-2013 3 are karta of their respective family and they are also in separate possession of the suit lands. These defendants admitted that the suit lands were the lands of the ancestors of the plaintiffs but the lands of village Sonbarsa was auction sold in rent decree filed by the landlord
Legal Reasoning
Mr. H.A. Grant and the landlord purchased the same. The auction sale was confirmed on 11.8.1931 and delivery of possession was affected on 15.12.1931. Since thereafter the plaintiffs or their ancestors had no concern with the said land. Gudari Kumar has obtained the settlement of the said land for the joint family and since after settlement the defendants came in possession and are residing in the house constructed. Subsequently, the suit land was divided by them. The defendants were mutated in the Sirista of Zamindar and obtained rent receipt. At the time of vesting of Zamindari return was filed by the Zamindar i.e. ex-landlord in the name of defendant Nos.12 and 13 and the rest half land in the name of defendant No.1. Since thereafter the defendants are paying rent to the State of Bihar against the grant of rent receipt. 4. The defendants also accepted that the land of Bikrampur also belonged to the ancestor of the plaintiffs. Because there was rent dues the said land was auction sold by the ex-landlord Mr. Grant and he sold the same. Gudri Kumar being the karta purchased the same in the name of Anandi Kumar on 10th January 1930 and since then the Patna High Court FA No.701 of 1978 dt.07-05-2013 4 ancestors of the plaintiffs had no concern with the said land. There was rent due against the defendants also therefore the ex-landlord purchased the said land in auction sale in the year 1943. Subsequently the said land was returned to the family of the defendant by Samaharta, Bhagalpur under the provisions of Bhumi Bakhas Pratyavartan Adhiniyam and since then defendants are in possession of the same. They also partitioned the said property. In survey the name of Kutai Kumar and others names have been recorded accordingly. There was partition between Gudri Kumar and Kutai Kumar much prior to 1929 – 1930 and were residing separately. This fact has been recoded in title suit No. 1968 of 1964 and the appeal arising out of the said suit being title appeal No. 22 of the 1969. All other allegations made in the plaintiffs were denied by the defendants. The revisional survey khatiyan has been prepared in the name of the defendants. In the written statement the defendant have given a great details and the date and case numbers in which the auction sale were made and sale certificates were issued and delivery of possession were affected. 5. On the basis of the aforesaid pleadings the trial court framed as many as 11 issues. 6. After trial the court below on the basis of the evidence recorded a finding that the defendants have been able to prove their possession Patna High Court FA No.701 of 1978 dt.07-05-2013 5 over the suit properties. Since the plaintiffs have not prayed for recovery of possession the plaintiffs’ suit is barred under Section 34 of the specific relief Act. 7. The learned senior counsel Mr. Dhruv Narayan appearing on behalf of the plaintiffs-appellants submitted that the trial court has not considered the Section 52 of the Bihar Tenancy Act and further has also not concerned that the land is subjected to aluvion and diluvion. Likewise the trial court has not considered the oral evidence of the parties. The appellants have filed the rent receipt from the year 1926 which have been marked as Ext.1 series to prove their possession over the suit land but the learned court below wrongly recorded the finding that the plaintiffs failed to prove their possession. It is admitted fact that the suit property is recorded in the survey Khatiyan of the year 1922 in the name of the ancestors of the plaintiffs. The learned counsel further submitted that since the plaintiffs have been able to prove their possession it is not necessary for the plaintiffs to pray for relief for recovery of possession therefore, the learned court below has wrongly held that the plaintiffs’ suit for declaration is barred under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act. In support of his contention the learned counsel relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Srivastava vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. 1998 (4) SCC 361. Patna High Court FA No.701 of 1978 dt.07-05-2013 6 8. On the other hand, the learned counsel Mr. Shiwanand Prasad Sinha appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that the learned trial court has considered everything and has recorded the finding that the defendants are in possession. No doubt, the properties were recorded in the name of the ancestors of the plaintiffs in the survey of the year 1922 but subsequently, as pleaded by the defendants lands were auction sold in the rent suit and it was purchased by ex-landlord and thereafter either settled the properties in favour of the defendants or sold the same. The return was also submitted by the ex-landlord in the name of the defendants. The defendants have produced the rent receipt granted by the ex-land lord and also the rent receipt granted by the State of Bihar after vesting of Zamindari. Since the suit has been filed simply for declaration of title the lower court below has rightly dismissed the plaintiffs’ suit on the ground that the suit is barred also under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act. In the recent survey of the year 1961 the name of the defendants respondents have been recorded in the survey record of right. There is presumption of correction in the entry made therein. In such circumstances it is for the plaintiffs to show that how they came in possession and when. The plaintiffs have not filed rent receipts after vesting of Zamindari. Only five rent receipts alleged to have been granted by ex-landlord have been filed. The plaintiffs are Patna High Court FA No.701 of 1978 dt.07-05-2013 7 claiming title only on the basis of the entry in the survey record of right in the year 1922. On these grounds, the learned counsel submitted hat the first appeal is liable to be dismissed with cost. 9. In view of above contention of the parties, the point arises for consideration is as to whether the plaintiff appellants have been able to prove their title and possession over the suit property or whether the plaintiffs suit is barred under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act and whether the impugned judgment and decree are sustainable in the eye of law ? 10. The claim of the plaintiff is that the suit properties were recorded in the name of their ancestors in the year 1922. This fact is admitted by the defendants in their pleadings. It may be mentioned here that the plaintiffs kept mum and said nothing about any auction sale in any rent suit and delivery of possession or grant of sale survey. On the contrary, although the defendants admitted that the properties were recorded in the name of the plaintiffs ancestor but pleaded that because of rent due the ex-landlord filed rent suit and obtained the decree and after taking possession the properties have been either settled or sold in favour of the ancestors of the defendants and since then the plaintiffs have nothing to do with the suit property. In recent survey of the year 1961 the names of the defendants have been recorded and the defendants are coming in possession of the Patna High Court FA No.701 of 1978 dt.07-05-2013 8 property allotted in their share after partition between them. 11. In support of their respective cases the parties have adduced oral as well as documentary evidences. 12. PW 1 Kailash Kumar has stated that since 1927 and 1928 the land of Khata No.412 started submerging in the Ganges and finally went inside the water in the year 1934-35. The land of village Bikrampur went inside water in the year 1947. The land came out from the water in the year 1959-60 and since then they are in possession of the property. The defendants are knowing the possession of the plaintiffs. PW 2 Jagan Ravidas has sated that he had not heard the beating of drum regarding giving delivery of possession of the land of Bikrampur. Anandi Kumar never came in possession of the land and he is seeing Kailash Kumar in possession of the land. PW No.3 stated about the land of Sonbarsa in paragraph 1and 3. He stated that Kailash is in possession of the same and the defendants never came in possession of the land. At paragraph 1 he has stated about the possession of Kailash over the land of Bikrampur. PW 4 Daroga Kumar, PW 5 Sachida Kumar, PW 6 Misri Kumar, PW 7 Seshnath Rai, PW 8 Jwala Kumar, PW 9 Naval Mandal and PW 10 Ramautar Kumar all have stated the same thing that the plaintiffs are in possession of the suit land and they have not seen the defendants in possession nor the defendants ever came in possession of the suit Patna High Court FA No.701 of 1978 dt.07-05-2013 9 land. 13. The plaintiffs have filed the rent receipts Ext. 1 series. From perusal of the rent receipt it appears that the same are from the year 1926 to 1956 i.e. prior to vesting of Zamindari. Out of the said rent receipt Ext. 1, 1-A, 1/I, 1/J, 1/K relates to Khata No.191 measuring 14 bigha 8 kattha 12 dhur. Ext. 1-B and Ext.1-D relates to Khata No.412 measuring 9 bigha 16 kattha 2 dhur. Ext. 1-B, 1-E, 1-F, 1-H relates to khata No.29 measuring 8 bigha 12 kattha 16 dhur. All these rent receipts are alleged to have been granted by the ex-landlord. Ext.-9 is the order of settlement officer in survey case No. 465 of 1973. From perusal of the said order it appears that the case was disposed of by observing that title suit is pending and the land is under water. Ext.10, 10/B and 10/Q are the orders of the Assistant Settlement Officer by which direction was given to record the names of the plaintiffs. Ext. 4-A is a Khatiyan. These documents have been filed to prove that the properties belonged to the plaintiffs and they were paying rent to the landlord. 14. On the contrary, the defendants have also examined various witness to prove their possession, auction sale and delivery of possession etc. The defendant No.1 Chitaranjan Kumar has been examined as DW I. He has stated that the land of Sonbarsa was auction sold in the year 1930-31 and Gudri Kumar had obtained the Patna High Court FA No.701 of 1978 dt.07-05-2013 10 settlement of the said land in the year 1933 from the Zamindar. Prior to settlement the Zamindar was in possession. After the death of their father and grandfather they came in possession of the land of Sonbarsa and constructed house thereon and are residing therein. This witness has also denied possession of the plaintiffs. He has fully supported the case made out in the written statement. DW 3 Mahendra Kumar, DW 4 Siyaram Kumar, DW 5 Mulki Kumar and the other witnesses DW 7 Baran Mandal, DW 8 Janardan Kumar, DW 11 Niranjan Kumar and DW 12 Pulkit Kumar all have stated about the possession of the defendants. They have also stated that the delivery of possession was given to the defendants. From perusal of the cross-objection of these witnesses it appears that the plaintiffs cross-examined the witnesses regarding as to whether there were any beating of drum or not. 15. The defendants have produced the Ext. A/4 which is a register of filing of disposal of execution case to prove that the land of Sonbarsa Khata No. 29 measuring 8 bigha 12 kattha 16 dhur was auction sold in rent suit No.1013 of 1929 and execution case No. 402 of 1930. However, from this Ext-4/A nothing is clear regarding case number or delivery of possession or it relates to the suit property. In my opinion, therefore, this is not helpful to the respondents. Likewise the defendants have filed Ext.-A/2 and A/3 but since there is nothing Patna High Court FA No.701 of 1978 dt.07-05-2013 11 in the said exhibits regarding the lands, these are not helpful to the defendants. However, the defendants have produced Ext.-D sale certificate dated 10.1.1930 in the name of Anandi Kumar father of defendant No.1 and 2. This document relates to the land of Bikrampur. According to the defendants this land was auction sold by the landlord which was purchased by Anandi Kumar i.e. father of defendant No.1 and 2. Ext.-E is the proclamation in rent execution case No. 2202 of 1933 with respect to lands of Bikrampur. This documents have been filed by the defendants to prove that Anandi Kumar also fell in arrears of rent and rent suit was filed by the ex- landlord and subsequently execution case was filed. To prove the deposit of Rs.60.80 Ext. F the challan dated 28.3.1930 has been filed by the defendant. This shows that in Bakast Land Restoration Case No. 305 of 1939 Anandi Kumar deposited the said amount pursuant to the order of Collector dated 9.3.1930. Ext.-K has been filed to prove that Andandi Kumar took delivery of possession on 4.7.1940. 16. The defendants have also produced rent receipt Ext. I/27 and I/28 regarding Bikrampur land. Ext. I/29 to I/33 granted by ex- landlord in the name of Anandi Kumar. The rent receipt granted by the State of Bihar has been filed which have been marked Ext. I/41 to I/44 which is in the name of defendant No.1. The Parcha has been filed which are Ext. G to G/3 which shows that the Bikrampur land is Patna High Court FA No.701 of 1978 dt.07-05-2013 12 recorded in the name of defendant Nos. 1 and 2. Ext. H to H/2 are the order sheet in survey case in respect to Bikrampur land. All these documents filed by the defendants relates to the land of Bikrampur. With regard to the land of Sonbarsa Ext. I series 13 rent receipts have been filed which are of the year 1340 fasli. The most important document is Ext. A which is an application filed by Gudri Kumar under Section 112 of the Bihar Tenancy Act for reduction of rent. Ext. B/1 is the order of Collector for reduction of rent passed on 23 January 1940. Likewise Ext. (C) the rent schedule regarding khata No. 412 and 29. These documents relate to 8 bigha 12 kattha 16 dhur of khata No. 29. 18 rent Receipts for the year 1340 fasli i.e. I-12, I- 11, I-10 are the rent receipts ranging from 1340 fasli to 1349 fasli. Ext. J is another application filed by Gudri Kumar for reduction of rent with regard to above 6 bigha 15 dhur in khata No. 412. It may be mentioned here that the plaintiffs have not produced any receipt with respect to 6 bigha 3 kattha 15 dhur land of village Sonbarsa. The receipt Ext. 1-G and 1-D have been filed and likewise 5 receipts have been filed for land of village Bikrampur and except the said receipt the plaintiffs have not filed the single rent receipt granted by the State of Bihar. The plaintiffs have also not produced a single chit of paper to show that their names have been mutated and Jamabandi have been opened in their names in the Sirista of State of Bihar. Patna High Court FA No.701 of 1978 dt.07-05-2013 13 17. In view of the above documentary evidences produced by the defendants respondents it is clear that the defendants were in possession of the property and had taken various steps at different stage including the filing of application for rent reduction. Various orders were passed by the Collectors in the said cases. Sale certificate has also been produced. 18. On the contrary, except bald statement made by the witnesses of the plaintiffs as discussed above, no documentary evidence has been produced in support of their continuous possession. As stated above prior to vesting and after vesting whether the plaintiffs took any step for filing of return or opening of register-II in their name or giving rent to the State of Bihar against the grant of rent receipt is not clear. 19. Admittedly, the plaintiffs have not challenged any order passed in the rent suit. Therefore, whether drum was beaten on the spot or not cannot be considered in this case and on that ground alone it cannot be said that delivery of possession was not affected. It is settled principles of law that the judicial and official acts will be presumed to have been regularly performed and the same cannot be challenged in collateral proceeding. The other aspect of the matter is that the plaintiffs never stated anything about the rent suit or delivery of possession or grant of sale certificate. When the defendants Patna High Court FA No.701 of 1978 dt.07-05-2013 14 produced the said documents, by the plaintiff argument was advanced that there was no delivery of possession on the spot and Anandi Kumar never came in possession. 20. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that after diluvion the right, title and interest of the Raiyat Subsist in such land which was lost by aluvion according to the provisions as contained in Section 52 (A) of the Bihar Tenancy Act. So far this submission is concerned, it may be mentioned here that Section 52-A (2)(a) reads as follows “Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Act or in any other law or in any contract, the right, title and interest of the Raiyat shall Subsist in such land or portion during the period of loss by diluvion and Raiyat shall have the right to immediate possession on the reformation of such land or portion on its old site” 21. According to the above provision no doubt the right, title and interest of Raiyat will subsist when the land will come out from the water but it depends on the fact that whether in fact the land sub merged in water. In the present case the defendants have adduced evidence to the effect that the land is not subject to the aluvion and diluvion and moreover the onus is on the plaintiffs to prove their title and to prove possession or the fact that they resumed possession. In Patna High Court FA No.701 of 1978 dt.07-05-2013 15 the present case as discussed above except the rent receipt stated to have been granted by the ex-landlord nothing has been brought on record by the plaintiff in support of their title and possession. On the contrary, the defendants have produced the evidences regarding selling of property by the ex-landlord, settling the property, order passed by the collector in rent reduction case, the sale certificate etc. Now therefore, even if the plaintiffs ancestral were the owner of the property the defendants have proved that how the title of the ancestors of the plaintiffs ceased. 22. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the lower court has declared the title of the plaintiffs and no cross objection has been filed. From perusal of the impugned judgment, I do not find that the courts below has declared the title of the plaintiff. On the contrary, specifically the courts below with respect to the Sonbarsa land has recorded a finding that the defendants have been able to prove their possession over the property vide paragraph 33 and likewise with regard to property of Bikrampur the courts blow has recorded the finding that Anandi Kumar had purchased the same. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted no counter claim has been filed by the defendants for declaration of their title and possession but the courts below has recorded a finding in their defence. So far this submission is concerned, also I do not find any merit because it is the Patna High Court FA No.701 of 1978 dt.07-05-2013 16 defence case of the defendants. The plaintiffs asserted their case and the defendants asserted their case. On the basis of the evidences the court below accepted the case of the defendants. In such circumstances, there is no question of filing any counter claim arises. 23. In view of my above discussion, I come to the conclusion that the plaintiff appellants have failed to prove their title and possession over the suit land. 24. The learned counsel relied upon a decision reported in 1998 (4) SCC 361 Ashok Kumar Srivastava vs. National Insurance Company and submitted that the courts below has wrongly held that the plaintiffs’ suit is barred under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act. From perusal of the said decision it appears that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the suit was filed by the plaintiff for a decree declaring that the notice of termination is illegal and void. Therefore, the above decision is not applicable in the present case. Further it appears that in that case further relief was claimed by the plaintiff. In the present case, at our hand as stated above a simple suit for declaration has only been filed. I have already recorded that the plaintiffs have failed to prove their title and possession. The trial court also recorded that the defendants have been able to prove possession. 25. In the case of Ram Saran and others vs. Smt. Ganga Devi Patna High Court FA No.701 of 1978 dt.07-05-2013 17 AIR 1972 SC 2685 the three judges bench of the Supreme Court held at paragraph 4 that “ as found by the fact finding case Ganga Devi is in possession of some of the suit properties. The plaintiffs have not sought possession of those property. They merely claimed a declaration that they are the owner of the suit property. Hence the suit is not maintainable”. Regarding this principle of law the Hon’ble Apex Court held that in these circumstances it is not necessary to go into the other contention that the suit is barred by law of limitation and dismissed the appeal. In the present case also no relief for possession has been claimed by the plaintiff. 26. In view of my above discussion the learned court below has rightly held that the plaintiffs’ suit is bared under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act. 27. The learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that chance should have been given by the trial court to the plaintiffs for claiming a relief for recovery of possession. So far this submission is concerned there is no such provision that the court will direct the party to claim the relief in particular manner. It is for the plaintiffs to have claimed in the suit. Moreover till today no such prayer has been made by the amendment. Over and above these facts I have already recorded a finding that the plaintiffs have failed to prove their title on the date of institution of the suit there is no question of recovery of Patna High Court FA No.701 of 1978 dt.07-05-2013 18 possession arises. The recovery of possession could have been considered had the plaintiffs proved their title on the suit property. 28. In view of my above discussion, I find no merit in this first appeal and accordingly, this first appeal is dismissed. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no orders as to costs. (Mungeshwar Sahoo, J) Patna High Court, Patna Date : 07.05.2013 S.S.