The & Ors. v. Most. Phool Kumari & Ors.

The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of his right, title and inter 2. est and confirmation of possession and also for declaration that the chitha muta tion in favour of defendants was illegal. He sought for cancellation mutation i n favour of the defendants. Anser Ali and Ahmed Ali were the original owner of t he land measuring 2B 3K 17 Ls. Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 are legal heirs of Late A nser Ali. Ahmed Ali was impleaded as proforma-defendant but he contested the su it and therefore, he was treated as Defendant No.3.

#3. The plaintiff’s case is that Anser Ali sold 2 bighas of land to Abdul Mu nnaf vide registered sale deed dated 29.06.1964. Successor-in-interest Abdul Mu nnaf sold B-Schedule land to plaintiff vide registered sale deed dated 27.01.197 5. The plaintiff purchased another plot of land measuring 4 Ks 15 Ls from Abdul Baser, Son of Late Anser Ali. Although, Abdul Munnaf had purchased the land fro m Anser Ali, the land was not mutated in his favour. Since the name of Abdul Mu nnaf was not recorded in the record of rights, the plaintiff could not mutate hi s name in the record of rights. The land purchased by the plaintiff from Abdul Baser was, however, mutated in his favour. Taking advantage of non mutation of the suit land, the widow and daughter of Late Abdul Baser, recorded their names in the record of rights on 27.12.1988. On 07.08.1995, the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 asked the plaintiff to vacate the suit land. Thereafter, the plaintiff came t o know about the mutation of the names of the defendants and filed the suit.

#4. The defendant Nos. 1 and 2 as well as the proforma-defendant contested t he suit. They denied that the land was ever sold by Anser Ali to Munnaf. Accord ing to them, during settlement operation of 1958-59, the land was settled in fav our of Anser Ali (Predecessor in interest of defendant No.2) and Ahmed Ali (Prof orma-defendant). The settlement holders namely, Anser Ali and Ahmed Ali never tr ansfer the land to anybody. They also claimed their possession apart from their right, title and interest. Defendant No.3, Ahmed Ali claimed that the suit land i.e. Schedule-B belonged to him and he is in possession of the said land since l ast 45-46 years.

#5. Both sides adduced evidence. The learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) held that Anser Ali sold 2 Bighas of land to Abdul Munnaf on 29.06.1964. The le gal heirs of Munnaf again sold 1 B 2 K 10 Ls of land to Abdul Baser, S/o Late An ser Ali. Rest 2 K 10 Ls of land belonging to Abdul Munnaf was sold to the plaint iff. The learned trial Court held that 2K 10 Ls of land was already sold to the plaintiff by the legal heirs of Abdul Munnaf on 27.01.1975. The name of defend ant Nos. 1 and 2 was recorded in the record of rights on 27.12.1988 much later o f the sale and therefore, mutation in favour of the defendant Nos. 1 & 2 was ill egal. The learned trial court also observed that the defendants failed to prope rly identify the suit land and they also failed to prove their possession over t he suit land.

#6. The appellate court observed that plaintiff failed to prove the sale dee d i.e. Ext. 1 and Ext. 2 as required under Section 67 of the Indian Evidence Act , 1872. Since the defendants denied the execution of sale deed by Anser Ali in favour of Abdul Munnaf, mere filing/exhibiting the sale deed is not sufficient p roof.

#7. The substantial questions of law, formulated in this appeal, are:- 1. Whether the documents Exbts. 1 and 2 are hit by the provis ions of Section 67 of the Indian Evidence Act?

#2. Whether the claim of the plaintiff is barred by the Articl es 64 and 65 of the Limitation Act?

#8. Heard the learned counsel for both the sides.

#9. The plaintiff has claimed his title over the suit land affter register ed sale deed executed by the heirs of Abdul Munnaf in favour of the plaintiff. I t is the plaintiff’s case that Abdul Munnaf became the owner of the land by virt ue of the sale deed executed by Anser Ali in the year 1964. Abdul Munnaf purcha sed 2 Bighas of land from Anser Ali and thereafter sold 1 ‰ Bighas of land to Ab dul Baser, Son of Anser Ali. The remaining ‰ Bigha of land was sold to the plai ntiff by the legal heirs of Abdul Munnaf. The defendants never admitted the exe cution of sale deed by Anser Ali in favour of Abdul Munnaf. Admittedly, neither Abdul Munnaf nor his legal heirs mutated their names in the record of rights. T he defendant Nos. 1 and 2 had claimed the land being successor and legal heirs o f Anser Ali. Plaintiff, in order to prove his case, exhibited two sale deeds i.e . Ext. 1, in respect of sale of the land by Anser Ali and Ext. 2, sale deed in r espect of land purchased by the plaintiff from the legal heirs of Abdul Munnaf. It is well settled that mere marking of a document as an exhibit does no 10. t dispense with it’s prove. No witnesses, who know the factum of execution of s ale deed, were produced or examine by the plaintiff before the learned trial cou rt. In the reported case of Bhupnarayan Singh Vs. Piloo Mura, 1998 (4) GLT 476, it was held that when a deed is challenged as false and fictitious, the executi on of the deed must be proved as required under Section 67 of the Evidence Act. In another case Sabha Ram Das Vs. Mahendra Das, reported in 2000(1) GLT 623, th e execution of the sale deed in favour of defendant was denied by the plaintiff. It was also held that it was necessary as required under Section 67 of the Evi dence Act, for the plaintiff to prove the execution of the sale deed. Requireme nt of Section 67 must be satisfied in the letter and spirit by tendering evidenc e for proving the execution of the document and signatures of those who have sig ned it.

#11. In the case of Mobarik Ali Ahmed Vs. The State of Bombay, reported in AI R 1957 SC 857, it was held that the proof of genuineness of a document is proof of the authorship of the document and is proof of a fact like that of any other fact. It may consist of direct evidence of a person who saw the document being w ritten or the signature being affixed. It may be proof of the handwriting of the contents or signature by one of the modes provided in sub-sections 45 and 47 of the Evidence At. The scribe can prove the contents of the document.

#12. In this case, the legal heirs of Abdul Munnaf, who executed the sale de ed in favour of the plaintiff, were not called to adduce evidence and prove the execution of the sale deed. When the plaintiff claimed title over the suit land on the basis of the sale deed, the burden lies on him to prove his execution as per the procedure laid down under Section 67 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

#13. The defendant, more particularly, defendant No.3, alleged in the writte n statement that the suit is barred by law of limitation. He claimed that he ha s been in possession of the land for last 45-46 years without any interruption. The learned trial court held that the defendants failed to prove that the suit land was in their possession and they failed to identify the land. It is submitt ed by learned counsel that the plea of adverse possession under Article 64/65 of the Limitation Act was not considered by the Appellate Court.

#14. Adverse possession within the meaning of Article 64 and 65 of the Limita tion Act is a hostile possession by clearly ascertaining hostile title and in de nial of the title of the true owner. It is well settled principle that a party claiming adverse possession must prove that his possession is (cid:28)nec vi nec clam, nec precario (cid:29) i.e. peaceful, open and continuous. In the case of Hemaji Waghaji Jat Vs. Bhikhabhai Khengarbhai Harijan & Others, reported in AIR 2009 SC 103, t he Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that in the eye of law, an owner would be deemed to be in possession of a property so long as there is no intrusion. Adver se possession is a hostile possession by clearly asserting hostile title in deni al of the title of the true owner. The possession must be adequate in continuit y, in publicity and in extent to show that their possession is adverse to the tr ue owner. It must start with a wrongful disposition of the rightful owner and be actual, visible, exclusive hostile and continued over the statutory period.

#15. It is not a case of the defendants that they wrongful dispossessed of the rightful owner at some particular point of time and they perfected the title by hostile and continuous possession over the statutory period. In the case of Sha mbhu Prasad Singh Vs. Most. Phool Kumari and others, reported in AIR 1971 SC 133 7, it was held that the co-sharer possession can be presumed to be adverse to th e other only when there is complete ouster of the other. To constitute adverse p ossession by a co-sharer, ouster of the non-possessing co-sharer has to be made out. There must be evidence of open assertion of a hostile title coupled with ex clusive possession and enjoyment by one of them to the knowledge of the other.

#16. Herein this case, the plaintiff has not claimed that he perfected his t itle by adverse possession. The defendants had claimed their title as owner of the land. They had also not claimed their title on the basis of adverse possess ion. Therefore, Articles 64 and 65 of Limitation Act is not applicable in this c ase.

#17. The plaintiff claimed that he purchased the suit land i.e. B-Schedul e land on 27.01.1975. The possession of the land was also settled to him. The defendant Nos. 1 and 2 entered their names in the record of rights on 27.12.1988 . It is submitted by Mr. HRA Choudhury, learned senior counsel on behalf of the plaintiff/appellant that merely mutation of name of any person in the revenue r ecords cannot confer valid title on him. In support of his submissions, he has r elied on the case of Balwant Singh and Another Vs. Daulat Singh (dead) by LRs. A nd Others, reported in AIR 1997 SC 2719 wherein, it was held that mutation entri es do not convey or extinguish any title and those entries are relevant only for the purpose of collection of land revenue.

#18. There is no dispute regarding the legal proposition of law held in th e cited case. Here, the defendants have claimed the suit land not only on the ba sis of mutation of the land in their favour but according to them, they are lega l heirs and successors of the original owner. The fact that the defendant Nos.1 & 2 are the legal heirs and successors of the original owner, Anser Ali, is not disputed. The plaintiff, herein, purchased the suit land in the year 1975. He did not care to mutate his land in the record of rights. He even did not file a ny revenue entries for the period from 1975-95.

#19. It is further submitted by the learned senior counsel for the appellan t that the judgment of the first appellate court is not tenable in law inasmuch as the learned trial court did not decide the various issues raised by the appel lant for determination. He has cited the case of Bogamal Gohain and Others Vs. Lakhinath Kalita and Others, reported in 1991 (2) GLR 147 wherein, it was observ ed that the judgment of the appellate court should be self-contained. It should be speaking judgment. It should contain decision on each and every point arising for consideration before the court with reasons therefor.

#20. In the cited judgment, it has also been held that the requirements of this rule, however, should not be given too technical an interpretation. Liter al compliance there of should not be insisted upon. If in a particular case, it is found that the court has properly considered all the questions raised, and h as given reasons for its decision, the judgment would not be vitiated just becau se the points for determination had not been formulated. In other words, substan tial compliance with the requirements of this rule will be sufficient. The lear ned trial court, herein this case, did not formulate the points for determinatio n. The appeal was disposed of only on the basis of that the plaintiff failed to prove the execution of sale deed. Both sides claimed possession over the suit l and but this point was not decided by the learned appellate court.

#21. In view of the above, the case is remanded back to the learned Civil Judge to decide the appeal afresh as per the requirements of Order 41 Rule 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The parties shall appear before the learned first appellate court within a month to obtain necessary orders.

#22. In the result, the appeal is accordingly allowed to the extent as ind icated above. Lower Court Records of the case be transmitted forthwith along wit h a copy of the judgment and order.