High Court
Case Details
RSA 145/2002 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N. CHAUDHURY JUDGMENT & ORDER(ORAL)
Legal Reasoning
This second appeal on behalf of the plaintiffs has been preferred against the ju dgment of reversal passed by the learned Civil Judge, Cachar at Silchar in Title Appeal No. 53. of 2000 whereby the judgment and decree dated 30.10.2000 passed by the learned Munsiff No. 1, Cachar at Silchar in Title Suit No. 168 of 1999 (r enumbered from Title Suit No. 16 of 1987) decreeing the suit was reversed by the learned first appellate Court and thereby the suit of the plaintiffs was dismis sed. While admitting the second appeal on 11.03.2003 this Court framed the follo wing substantial question of law:- (cid:28)Whether the learned Court below mis-interpreted the gift deed Ext.-1 in dismiss ing the appellants / plaintiffs suit as not maintainable in law? (cid:29) Before adverting to the substantial question of law referred above, it is necess ary to state the facts of the case in a nutshell. The plaintiffs instituted Titl e Suit No. 16 of 1987 in the Court of the then Assistant District Judge, No. 1, Cachar at Silchar which was subsequently transferred to the Court of learned Mun siff No. 1, Cachar at Silchar on enhancement of pecuniary jurisdiction of the la tter by way of amendment in the Bengal, Bihar, Agra, Assam Civil Courts Act, 188 7 and was accordingly renumbered as Title Suit No. 168/1999. In the said suit th e plaintiffs claimed that suit land measuring 1 Bigha 4 Kathas 4 Chattaks alongw ith another plot of land measuring 2 Bighas 8 Kathas 8 Chattaks originally belon g to one Partha Singh Subedar who made oral gift in favour of Gokulananda Sarmah , the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs. Gokulananda Sarmah set up a tem ple on the suit land and was engaged in priestly profession while he was enjoyin g the usufruct of the R.R. plot of land measuring 2 Bighas 8 Kathas 8 Chattaks. After the death of Partha Singh Subedar his son Babu Singh and two wives of Late Partha Singh Subedar executed the registered gift deed in favour of Gokulananda Sarmah on 02.04.1911. Although Gokulananda Sarmah went on possessing the suit l and measuring 1 Bigha 4 Kathas 4 Chattaks, he sold the other plot of land measur ing 2 Bighas 8 Kathas 8 Chattaks to one of the donors Babu Singha. However, he g ot his name duly mutuated in respect of 1 Bigha 4 Kathas 4 Chattaks suit land. A ccording to the plaintiffs the legal heirs of the donors, namely, the defendants dispossessed the plaintiffs from the suit land, stole away the idols and starte d unauthorisedly worshiping the deity themselves. There were quite a good number of criminal proceedings between the parties, however, to no avail and thus the plaintiffs had to file the suit for declaration of their right, title and intere st over the suit land on the basis of the aforesaid gift deed and for recovery o f possession. The defendants by submitting the written statement denied the case of the plaint iffs and asserted that the land was never gifted to Gokulananda Sarmah and rathe r he was engaged as a priest while the gift was made in favour of the deity. Thu s execution of the gift deed was admitted but it was asserted that it was a gift in favour of the deity and not in favour of Gokulananda Sarmah who was merely a shebait of donee deity. The learned trial Court framed as many as 9 issues in all. The said issues are q uoted below: ISSUES 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. ADDITIONAL ISSUES Whether there is any cause of action for the suit? Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form? Whether the suit is barred by limitation? Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of parties? Whether the suit had been properly valued and stamped? Whether the suit is bad for waiver, estoppel and acquiescence? To what relief, if any, the plaintiffs are entitled? 8. 9. operties and deities? Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to get the decree as prayed for? Whether the plaintiffs have their right, title interest over the suit pr Out of aforesaid issues, issue No. 9 is the cruse of the suit more so in view of substantial question of law framed in the second appeal. Plaintiff examined 4 witnesses and exhibited documents whereas the defendants ex amined 5 witnesses in all. Learned trial Court by his judgment and decree dated 30.10.2000 decided issue No. 9 in favour of the plaintiffs holding that a perusa l of the gift deed shows that the gift was made in favour of Gokulananda Sarmah and not in favour of any deity and that. Exhibit-1 is the said gift deed. The le arned trial Court further observed that vide Exhibit-3, Gokulananda Sarmah had g ot his name duly mutated in the records of rights as an owner and not as a sheba it. With these observations, interalia, others, the learned trial Court decreed the suit for declaration and for recovery of possession. The defendants preferred Title Appeal No. 53/2000 in the Court of the learned Ci vil Judge, Cachar at Silchar against the trial Court decree. The point for decis ion before the learned first appellate Court also centered around interpretation of Exhibit-1 gift deed. The learned first appellate Court was of the view that Exhibit-1 did not convey any title to Gokulananda Sarmah, the donee, and as such plaintiffs cannot claim right, title and interest over the suit land on the bas is of the said gift deed. The learned first appellate Court found that the statu s of the donee, Gokulananda Sarmah was only that of a shebait. By judgment and d ecree dated 30.03.2002 the first appellate Court reversed the findings of the tr ail Court and dismissed the suit. Hence, this second appeal. I have heard Ms. S. Senapati, learned counsel for the appellants. None appears f or the respondents although cause list shows the name of the learned counsel rep resenting the respondents. As per the substantial question of law framed by this Court at the time of admis sion of the second appeal construction of Exhibit-1 is the only question to be a nswered and as such, we take-up Exhibit-1 for our perusal. Exhibit -1 is the cer tified copy of the registered gift deed dated 02.04.1911. The name of the donee has been shown as Sri Gokulananda Sarmah, son of late Tuteswar Sarmah. Nowhere i n the gift deed there is any mention of any deity, not to speak of mentioning th e name of the deity as donee. Although there is mention of the word ’Debottar’ i n the gift deed but in the third page of the gift deed it is unequivocally state d that with the extinguishment of the title of the donor, title thereby vested o n the donee and the said donee and his legal heirs thereby acquired right to sel l or gift the land in question and to get the deeds of such conveyance registere d as per law. By the gift deed the donee has also been given the right to enjoy the demised land by paying land revenue and other taxes and also for getting mu tation. All these recitals are indicative of the intention of the donor(s) that all the executors of the deed made the deed in favour of Gokulananda Sarmah and not in favour of any deity. Reasons for understanding Exhibit-1 in this way is n ot only the aforesaid recital but also default in regard to mentioning the name or existence of any deity. Merely by mention of the word debottar it cannot be p resumed that the land has been gifted to any deity. In that event the name of th e deity would have been mentioned as donee and shebait would have been mentioned as only the guardian of the deity. Subsequent mutation by Exhibit-3 in favour o f Gokulananda Sarmah during the life time of the executors of the gift deed Exhi bit-1 further strengthens the view that the title was conferred to Gokulananda v ide Exhibit-1 and possession enjoyed by him had been recognised in the form of m utation inasmuch as for allowing mutation in favour of a party the revenue autho rity has to satisfy itself as to existence of primafacie title and possession o f the applicant or the person in whose favour mutation was proposed to be allowe d. Recital of Exhibit-3 is also perused which shows that the suit land should re corded in the name of Gokulananda. Apart from the aforesaid circumstances there is yet another logic in considering the Exhibit-1 to have conferred title to Gokulananda in person, is that having obtained title on 02.04.1911 with respect to plots of land by one deed, namely, Exhibit-1 the said Gokulananda Sarmah sold the second plot other than the suit l and to one of the donors, namely, Babu Singh vide Exhibit-2. If the defendants c laimed that by Exhibit-1 Gokulananda did not acquire title then acquisition of t itle by the defendants or their predecessors-in-interest vide Exhibit-2 itself b ecomes vulnerable inasmuch as the predecessors of the defendants knew that Gokul ananda was the title holder and that is why he purchased the land from Gokulanan da vide Exhibit-2. Thus having purchased a part of the demised land covered by E xhibit-1 from Gokulananda Sarmah, the purchaser of Exhibit-2, namely, the predec essor-in-interest of the defendant are estopped from challenging the title of Go kulananda Sarmah acquired on the basis of Exhibit-1. In this view of the matter, the learned trial Court rightly held that Gokulananda had acquired title to the suit land vide Exhibit-1 and as such the suit for declaration of title and reco very of possession was decreed. For the aforesaid reasons it is held that learne d first appellate Court failed to construe Exhibit-1 and as such the substantial question of law is answered in the affirmative in so far as the first part of t he question is concerned and in negative in so far as its second part. It is hel d that learned first appellate Court mis-interpreted gift deed Exhibit-1 and the suit of the plaintiffs, therefore, is maintainable in law. Accordingly the firs t appellate judgment and decree are set aside and that of the trial Court is uph eld. No order as to costs. Draw up decree accordingly and send down the LCR.