F SIKKIM v. SRI RAM KUMAR MAZI
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 28 Sep 2005
- Bench
- N S SINGH
Held
The court held that the suit is not barred by limitation and that the petitioners have a valid claim to the land.
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 33. The case of the plaintiff was resisted by the defendants by filing written statement and by contending inter alia, that they have been in occupation of the suit land since 1995 along with their late father, who purchased the same from late Dhanrey Mazi…
Summary
AI-generated summaryWritten by AI from the judgment text below. It is not part of the judgment and is not legal advice — read the original before relying on it.
Facts
The petitioners claim that a portion of land was sold to their father by Dhanrey Mazi and that the defendants now occupy the land. The respondents argue that the land was sold to them and that the petitioners lack the original sale deed.
Issues
- Whether the suit for declaration of title and ownership is barred by limitation.
- Whether the defendants have a valid claim to the land.
Holding
The court held that the suit is not barred by limitation and that the petitioners have a valid claim to the land.
Reasoning
The court applied Article 113 of the Limitation Act, noting that the period of limitation is three years from the accrual of the right to sue, and found that the suit was filed within that period.
Practical significance
The decision confirms that title suits for declaration of ownership are governed by Article 113 of the Limitation Act and that the limitation period is three years from the accrual of the right to sue.
Judgment
For the petitioners : Mr. N.K.P. Sarraf, Advocate for the petitioners. PRESENT: THE HON'BLE SHRI .USTICE N.S. SINGH, CHIEF .USTICE (ACTING|. Date of Judglnent : 28th September, 2005. JUDGMENT N.S. SINGH. CJ. IACTG.I. The order dated 20.08.2005 passed by the Civil Judge, South District at Namchi in Title suit No. 8 of 2005 is the t.\c,, subject matter under challenge in this revision petition. The facts of the case in a short compass are as follows: -
The plaintiff, namely, Shri Ram Kumar Mazi, respondent herein filed a civil suit being Title Suit No. 8 of 2005 before the Court below for declaration of title, ownership and title-holder in possession of suit property and other consequential reliefs by contending inter alia, that during the lifetime of Dhamey Mazi the remairing portion of land under Plot No. 781 (old) was transferred to the plaintiff throuch a Registered Sale Deed and the said Dhanrey Mazi was unmarried person. It is also the case of the plaintiff that in and around 1995 and during the lifetime of the said Dhanrey Mazi, he has transfeITed through a registered Sale Deed a portion of plot No. 781, measuring more or less 30' x 30' to the father of the defendants and the plaintiff was present during the said transaction. However, to the utter surprise and dianay of the plaintiff, it was found that the land records reflected that a part of the property intended to be sold, measuring more or less 30' x 25', which is morefuny described in Schedule a (Suit Property) was recorded in the name of the defendants and that being the position the matter was placed before the District Couector, South Sildim at Nanchi for clarification and the matter was heard by the learned District Couector, South wherein the defendants •.\c9? `!.` ` . •+ claimed that their father had purchased 30' x 55' and not 30' x 30' and as such the suit property belong to them. But the defendants were unable to produce the original Sale Deed despite the direction of District Collector, South Sikkjm on flimsy preteat and contended that their father had misplaced the same and their claim is based on Thatiyan Parcha.
The case of the plaintiff was resisted by the defendants by filing written statement and by contending inter alia, that they have been in occupation of the suit land since 1995 along with their late father, who purchased the same from late Dhanrey Mazi under a registered Sale Deed. It is also the case of the defendants that late Dhanrey Mazi sold the land measuring 0.0180 Hect. to the father of the defendants, the petitioners herein. A preliminary objection was raised by the defendants before the Court below that the suit is baITed by limitation. Upon hearing the parties, learned Court below opined that the suit was filed on 11.11.2004 which is within the period of limitation and accordingiv, the plea of linitation raised by the defendants was rejected. I have perused the impugned order. The relevant observations of the Court below is important in the case in hand and accordingly, it is quoted below: - . •.\c# "Article 58 of the Limitation Act, 1968 provides the period of limitation to be 3 years for obtaining any other declarations.
This instant suit is ffled for declaration of title and ownership. In the facts and circumstances of this case, I find Article 113 of the Limitation Act would be apphicable. Article 113, Liniitation Act is an `omnibus article' and includes all suits hot specifically provided' for elsewhere in the schedule. The period of liniitation under Article 113 Limitation Act is 3 years and the time begins to run when the right to sue accrues. According to the contention made by the Defendant the Plaintiff vide his sale deed dated 22.11.1999 had knowledge of the alleged illegality. However, I find that the sale deed dated 22.11.1999 does not indicate the knowledge of alleged inegality by the Defendants. Iud. Counsel for the Defendants mentioned that as per paragraph 15 of the plaint, the cause of action first arouse on February, 2000 when the suit plot was registered in the nane of plaintiff. It is submitted that the Ld.
Counsel for the Defendants has oniitted to read the continuation to this sentence. It continues that; "in and around the month of February, 2004 when the sale deed was presented for registration and ot)jected by the Defendants". I find that in a suit for declaration of title and ownership of suit land, time begins to run when the Plaintiff becomes aware that his ownership is challenged. A richt is said to accrue only when there is an actual accrual of the right asserted in the suit and its infringement or at least clear and unequivocal threat to infrange that right by the Defendant against whom the suit is instituted. Paragraph 15 of the Plaintiff read as a whole is clear that on February, 2004, when the Plaintiff presented the sale deed for registration, it was objected by the Defendants. February 2004 is the a.\cgiv, 4 t, `,. I, first occasion when the Plaintiff became aware that his title and ownership was being challenged.
This suit filed on 11.11.2004 is within the period of limitation. Hence, the plea of linritation raised by the Defendants is rejected. " In my considered view the impugned order is a reasoned order and as such no interference is called for. It is well settled that mere recording of mane(s) in the records of rights including Khatian does not confer any right or title of any land. Under the law, a registered Sale Deed is a title deed. In the case in hand, the defendants could not produce related original Registered Sale Deed. It is also well settled that records of richts is revisable by the competent authority. In this regard a reference is made to a decision of the Apex Court rendered in State of West Bengal and others v. Suburban Agriculture Dairy & Fisheries P`7t. Ltd. and another reported in AIR 1993 SC 2103 and, if the order of Revenue Officer in mutation proceedings based on untrue piece of evidence has no evidentiary value in civil suit (see Dayaram and others v.
Dawalatshah and another reported in AIR 1971 SC 681). Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that recording of the name of the late father of the petitioners (defendants) in the matian under the related mutation order is a title deed which cannot be challenged by the plaintiff, holds a little water. +.\cJP, 5 . ... ]¢-` For the reasons, observations and discussion made above, I am of the view that the petitioners could not make out a case to justify the interference with the impugried order. In the result, the petition is devoid of merit and accordingly, it is dismissed thus affirming the impugried order passed by the Court below, with a cost of Rs.3000/- (Rupees three thousand) only which shall be treated as part of the fund of the Si]ddm Bar Association for which the petitioners shall deposit the same with the Registry of this Court within a period of one week from today and after such deposit the authority of Sikldm Bar Association is at liberty to withdraw the same from the Registry of this Court. A copy of this Order be communicated to the Court below. Registry is to act accordingly. `-I- --=--` ( N.S. SINGH ) cH[EF -usTlcE (Ac'rlNG) 28.09.2cO5
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The court held that the suit is not barred by limitation and that the petitioners have a valid claim to the land.
What was the main issue before the Court?
Whether the suit for declaration of title and ownership is barred by limitation.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Sikkim High Court, on 28 Sep 2005. The bench was N S SINGH.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.