High Court
Case Details
RSA 92/2002 BEFORE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B.P. KATAKEY JUDGMENT & ORDER (Oral)
Legal Reasoning
This appeal, by the defendants, is directed against the judgment and decree date d 18th January, 2002 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Goalpa ra in Title Appeal No.5/2001, dismissing the appeal preferred by the present app ellants and by affirming the judgment and decree dated 18th September, 2000 pass ed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) No.1, Goalpara in Title Suit No. 73/1994, whereby and whereunder the suit filed by the predecessor-in-interest of the present respondents has been decreed. [2] The predecessor-in-interest of the present respondents institute d the said suit for declaration of right, title and interest and for recovery of khas possession in respect of 1 Bigha 1 Katha 19 Lechas of land, morefully desc ribed in Schedule to the plaint, contending inter alia that he acquired right, t itle and interest over the suit land by virtue of purchase vide registered deed of sale dated 16th September, 1954 executed by Cheniram Das. It has further bee n pleaded that after such purchase, possession was handed over to the plaintiff, who because of his illness, allowed the father of the defendant Nos.1 to 4, nam ely, Jumar Sheikh, to cultivate the land on condition that he would hand over po ssession of the said land back to the plaintiff as and when required. According to the plaintiff, Jumar Sheikh, however, did not hand over possession of the la nd back to the plaintiff despite the request made and thereafter, the successor- in-interest of Jumar Sheikh, namely, the defendant Nos.1 to 4 sold the land in f avour of the defendant No.5, the widow of Jumar Sheikh. The plaintiff further c ontended that the working Khatian in respect of the suit land was issued in his favour. The suit has been contested by the defendants by filing joint wr [3] itten statement denying the claim of the plaintiff that the land was purchased b y him, apart from the claim of possession. It has been contended that Jumar She ikh has been possessing the suit land for last 50/60 years and paid land revenue , who, by a registered deed, transferred the land in favour of the defendant Nos .1, 2 and 3 and delivered possession. According to the defendants, final Khatia n was also issued in the name of Jumar Sheikh. [4] he following issues for determination: The trial Court, based on the pleadings of the parties, framed t (cid:28)(1) Whether there was cause of action to the suit? (2) Whether the Suit is maintainable in its present form? (3) Whether the Plaintiff has right, title and interest over the Suit Land? (4) Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to get khas possession of the Suit Land? (5) What relief if any the Plaintiff is entitled to? (cid:29) The trial Court, upon appreciation of the evidences, both oral a [5] nd documentary on record, decreed the suit of the plaintiff by holding that the plaintiff has acquired right, title and interest over the suit land because of t he working Khatian (Exhibit-1) wherein the plaintiff’s name appeared as Riyot. [6] Being aggrieved, the defendants preferred the appeal, which has been dismissed by affirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. Hence, the present appeal. [7] er, 2002 on the following substantial question of law:- The appeal was admitted for hearing vide order dated 15th Novemb (cid:28)Whether the mere existence of the name of the plaintiff recorded in the working khatian confers any right, title and interest on the plaintiff over the suit la nd? (cid:29) [8]
Legal Reasoning
I have heard Mr. M.A. Sheikh, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. S.H. Rahman, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. [9] It has been contended by Mr. Sheikh, learned counsel for the app ellants that since the plaintiff claimed right, title and interest in respect of the suit land based on an alleged purchase vide sale deed dated 16th September, 1954, the plaintiff has to prove the said sale deed, which having not been done , the Courts below ought not to have decreed the suit of the plaintiff based on the working Khatian only where the name of the plaintiff appears, since such rev enue record, in the absence of such title deed, would not confer any right, titl e and interest on the plaintiff. [10] Mr. Rahman, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, on th e other hand, has submitted that since the plaintiff could prove the working Kha tian (Exhibit-1) issued by the Government of Assam, the plaintiff’s right, title and interest has rightly been decreed by the Courts below even though he did no t prove the title deed, i.e. sale deed dated 16th September, 1954, executed by C heniram Das, transferring his right, title and interest in favour of the plainti ff. [11] I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counse l appearing for the appellants and also perused the aforesaid judgments and decr ees passed by the Courts below. I have also perused the documents proved in the proceeding including Exhibit-1, working Khatian and Exhibit-B, final Khatian, is sued in the name of the predecessor-in-interest of the present respondents and t he predecessor-in-interest of the present appellants, respectively. [12] As noticed above, the plaintiff claims right, title and interest contending that he has purchased the suit land from Cheniram Das by a registere d deed of sale dated 16th September, 1954. The plaintiff, however, did not prov e the said sale deed and during cross-examination, he has admitted that he has n ot produced the said sale deed. The plaintiff in support of the claim that he ha s purchased the land and acquired right, title and interest by virtue of such pu rchase, has produced Exhibit-1, working Khatian, wherein the plaintiff’s name ap peared in respect of Dag No.57 and Khatian Nos.31/32. Since the plaintiff claim s right, title and interest by virtue of such purchase on 16th September, 1954, the plaintiff’s right, title and interest cannot be decreed based on the Exhibit -1, working Khatian, in the absence of proof of sale, i.e. proof of the sale dee d dated 16th September, 1954. The said aspect of the matter has not been gone i nto by both the Courts below. [13] urts below are set aside. The suit of the plaintiff is dismissed.
Decision
In view of the above, the judgments and decrees passed by the Co [14] The appeal stands allowed. The parties, however, are directed to bear their cost throughout. [15] The Registry is directed to send down the records.