Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 619 (GAU)

Amarendra Dutta v. Tarun Chandra Dutta

2015-05-22

N.CHAUDHURY

body2015
Order In this Regular First Appeal the defendants of Title Suit No. 25 of 2005 have challenged the judgment and decree dated 23.08.2007 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Lakhimpur. By that judgment the suit of the plaintiffs was decreed and the counter-claim filed by the defendants was dismissed. [2] Tarun Chandra Dutta and his son Mukul Dutta as plaintiffs instituted Title Suit No. 25 of 2005 in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) on 23.12.2005 stating that the land described in schedule to the plaint measuring 3 Bigha 4 Katha 5 Lehas covered by Dag No. 667 of K.P. Patta No. 220 of Lakhimpur Mouza Part-3 belongs to them and that they have a patta in the name of the plaintiff No.1 in respect of that land. The plaintiffs had been enjoying the land since beginning and the plaintiff No.2 who is an educated employed youth obtained loan with respect to the said land from State Bank of India by keeping the land under mortgage. While securing the aforesaid loan, bank made necessary inquiry and its panel advocate through Ghanashyam Saikia submitted report on 21.06.1999 to the effect that the plaintiff No.1 is recorded pattadar of the land and that the plaintiffs are in possession of the land. The loan was subsequently liquidated and the land was released from mortgage. Thereafter, the plaintiffs wanted to sale the land and for that purpose submitted application before the Lakhimpur Development Authority as well as Circle Officer Lakhimpur for necessary No-objection certificate. The defendants at that time created problem in the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land for which plaintiffs filed an FIR before the North Lakhimpur Police Station leading to registration of a case being Misc. Case No. 60 of 2005 under Section 145 of Cr.P.C. in the Court of Smt. Kalpana Deka, the Executive Magistrate at North Lakhimpur. The Executive Magistrate passed an order permitting the defendants to cut away the paddy from the land and thereupon, the plaintiffs sustained loss to the tune of Rs.5,000/-. It is asserted that the defendants do not have any right, title and interest to the land and they had never possessed the same in any point of time or prior to 14.12.2005. The suit land remained under possession of the plaintiffs and it is only thereafter the defendants had possessed the same. It is asserted that the defendants do not have any right, title and interest to the land and they had never possessed the same in any point of time or prior to 14.12.2005. The suit land remained under possession of the plaintiffs and it is only thereafter the defendants had possessed the same. With these averments of facts, the plaintiffs prayed for a decree declaring their right, title and interest over the suit land, for recovery of Khass possession by evicting the defendants and for declaration that judgment and order passed by the Executive Magistrate in M.C. No 60 of 2005 under Section 145 of Cr.P.C. on 14.12.2005 is illegal, inoperative etc. [3] On being summoned the defendants appeared and submitted written statement denying the case of the plaintiffs. According to the defendants the land originally belonged to Jewram Das @ Dutta, the father of the defendants and Plaintiff No.1 and after his death the land was amicably partitioned between the father of the plaintiff No.1 and the father of the defendants in the year 1939 and since then they have been peacefully enjoying the same. The suit land fell in the share of Nandeswar Dutta, the deceased father of the defendants and that neither Devandra Nath Dutta, the father of the plaintiff No.1 nor the plaintiffs have ever been in possession of the land. The defendants further stated that while plaintiff No.2 prayed for loan before the State Bank of India the defendants submitted objection and thereupon, it came to light that the land had been under the possession of the defendants. The state Bank of India asked the plaintiffs to return the loan and thereupon, the plaintiffs compromised the matter with the bank by refunding the loan amount. According to the defendants, the Executive Magistrate after considering all the evidence on record and after inspection of the suit land arrived at the finding that the land has all along been in possession of the defendants and that the plaintiffs were never in possession thereof, so there was no mistake or error in the decision of the Executive Magistrate. According to the defendants, the Executive Magistrate after considering all the evidence on record and after inspection of the suit land arrived at the finding that the land has all along been in possession of the defendants and that the plaintiffs were never in possession thereof, so there was no mistake or error in the decision of the Executive Magistrate. [4] In paragraph-12 of the written statement, the defendants took a specific stand that in the year 1939 itself there was exchange of land between the sides of the plaintiffs and the defendants whereupon, suit land fell in the share of the defendants and they had been enjoying the same for a period of over 66 years. With this statement defendants made a prayer by filing a counter-claim for declaring their right, title and interest with respect to the land on the basis of which amicable partition be decreed. The plaintiffs submitted written statement against the counter-claim and denied the case of the defendants. The learned trial court considered the submission of the parties and thereupon framed as many as 8 (eight) issues which are quoted below:- “1) Whether there is cause of action for filing of the suit? 2) Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? 3) Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form? 4) Whether the defendants are in continuous possession over the suit land since the period of his deceased father? 5) Whether the plaintiffs dispossessed the defendants? 6) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to reliefs as prayed for? 7) Whether the defendants are entitled to reliefs as prayed for? 8) To what relief/reliefs the parties are entitled to?” [5] In course of trial the plaintiffs examined as many as 3 witnesses including plaintiff No.2. While the defendants examined as many as 8 witnesses including the defendants No.1, 2 & 3. After considering all evidence led by the parties and the documents adduced by them, the learned trial court decided issue No.5 in favour of the plaintiffs holding that the plaintiffs succeeded to prove their right, title and interest with respect to the land and they also proved that they were dispossessed by the defendants. According to the learned court, the defendants could not prove their possession over the land or the claim of amicable partition or exchange of land between the plaintiffs and the defendants. According to the learned court, the defendants could not prove their possession over the land or the claim of amicable partition or exchange of land between the plaintiffs and the defendants. Having so found by impugned judgment and decree dated 23.08.2007 the suit of the plaintiffs was decreed in entirety and the counter-claim of the defendants was dismissed. This judgment has been brought under challenge in the present appeal. [6] I have heard Mr. P.K. Goswami, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. T.J. Mahanta, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. P. Bhattacharya, learned counsel for the respondents. I have also perused the pleadings of the parties and the deposition adduced by their respective witnesses. I have also seen the documents exhibited by the parties. [7] The sole point for determination on which this appeal can be decided is as follows:- Whether the plaintiffs have executed to prove that they were in possession of the land prior to 14.12.2005 and that they were dispossessed by the defendants? [8] The plaintiff No.2 examined himself as P.W.1 and stated that his father plaintiff No.1 was sick and so he was not in a position to depose. He executed general power of attorney in favour of the P.W.1 to depose on his behalf. Said power of attorney is exhibited as Exhibit-1. It is to be seen that the plaintiffs pleaded to be exclusive owner of the land in question and in support thereof they stated that there is a K.P. Patta in their favour. It is stated in the plaint that prior to 14.12.2005 plaintiffs have been in possession of the land but on that date the Executive Magistrate passed an order, permitting the defendants to take away paddy from the suit land and this is why the defendants entered into the suit land and took over the possession thereof. Thus, it is the consistent stand of the plaintiffs that prior to 14.12.2005 they had all along been in possession of the suit land which contain not only homestead land but also paddy land and fishery land. To prove such pleaded case P.W.1 came to the witness box and reiterated the plaint story in his examination-in-chief submitted in the form of affidavit under Order XVIII Rule 4 of the Code of Civil procedure. To prove such pleaded case P.W.1 came to the witness box and reiterated the plaint story in his examination-in-chief submitted in the form of affidavit under Order XVIII Rule 4 of the Code of Civil procedure. He stated that Sarat Sing Buragohain being the gaonburah issued certificate of possession in their favour and the same was also exhibited. Exhibit- 1 is the general power attorney executed by the plaintiff No.1 in favour of the plaintiff No.2. Exhibit-2 is the Jamabandi of the suit land to show that the same stand in the name of the plaintiff No.1 Tarun Chandra Dutta. Exhibit-3 is the K.P. Patta in original which is issued in the name of Debendra Nath dutta, the father of the plaintiff No.1. Exhibit-4 is the revenue paying receipt for the year 2004-2005 showing payment of revenue by the plaintiffs. Exhibits-5 is a search report issued by the office of the District Magistrate, Lakhimpur found the same to be free from all encumbrances. Exhibit-6 is the legal opinion given by advocate G.S. Saikia to the Branch Manager State Bank of India, North Lakhimpur Branch in regard to marketability of title of the suit land. Exhibit-7 is also a report on title by the same advocate. Exhibit-8 is a certificate issued by the State Bank of India, North Lakhimpur Branch to the effect that a PMRY Loan for piggery scheme granted to the plaintiff on 12.08.1999 has been liquidated on 02.06.2005 under compromise proposal. Exhibit-9 is a letter dated 12.08.1999 written by the plaintiff No.1 to the Branch Manager, State Bank of India, North Lakhimpur deposing that title deed of the suit land in favour of the bank for securing loan. [9] P.W.1 has also proved a certificate issued by Sarat Sing Buragohain Lat Gaonbura. This certificate is exhibited as Exhibit-13 and Exhibit-12 is the notice given to said Sarat Sing Buragohain by the Circle Officer on 27.07.2005. [10] It is to be noted that P.W.1 has not made any statement as to when the defendants dispossessed the plaintiffs. [9] P.W.1 has also proved a certificate issued by Sarat Sing Buragohain Lat Gaonbura. This certificate is exhibited as Exhibit-13 and Exhibit-12 is the notice given to said Sarat Sing Buragohain by the Circle Officer on 27.07.2005. [10] It is to be noted that P.W.1 has not made any statement as to when the defendants dispossessed the plaintiffs. He only mentioned in course of his examination-in-chief that the defendants wanted to disturb the possession of the plaintiffs and so the plaintiffs had to approach the learned Executive Magistrate under Section 145 Cr.P.C. He further stated that the defendants became emboldened by the order dated 14.12.2005 but no where he has stated that on 14.12.2005 the plaintiffs were dispossessed from the suit land. So this witness could not justify the statement made in the Paragraph-11 of the plaint that prior to 14.12.2005 plaintiffs had been in possession of the suit land. [11] Sarat Singh Buragohain has been examined as P.W.2 in the case and in his examination-in-chief submitted in the form of affidavit he stated that the plaintiffs and the defendants from the time of their fathers had been separately possessing the respective properties. The defendants have started demanding for the land only after the judgment was passed by the learned Executive Magistrate in the proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C. In course of cross-examination, he admitted that he did not know the suit land earlier and he came to know about the same in the year 2005 only when he was served with a notice from the office of the Circle Officer. Thus, this witness also could not provide any help to the plaintiffs to depose that the plaintiffs had been in possession of the land prior to 14.12.2005. [12] Sri Ghanashyam Saikia has been examined as P.W.3 in the case by the plaintiffs. He stated that he is panel lawyer of the State Bank of India and he was entrusted with the job of enquiry and report in respect to the suit land for the purpose of loan sanctioned for piggery to the plaintiff No.2. Accordingly, he issued Exhibit-6 report and Exhibit-6(i) is his signature. In course of his cross-examination, he admitted that for the purpose of preparation of the report he relied on the documents and did not inspect the land. Accordingly, he issued Exhibit-6 report and Exhibit-6(i) is his signature. In course of his cross-examination, he admitted that for the purpose of preparation of the report he relied on the documents and did not inspect the land. [13] Thus, the evidence of P.W.3 also cannot be of any help to prove the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land prior to 2005. Apart from these 3 witnesses no other witness examined by the plaintiffs to prove their right, title and interest or possession of the land prior to 14.12.2005 as claimed in Paragraph-11 of the plaint. [14] The defendants on the other hand have examined as many as 8 witnesses. D.W.1, 2 & 3 are the defendants No.1, 2 & 3 of the case. They reiterated their pleaded story in the examination-in-chief. According to them in the year 1939 Devendra Nath Dutta separated his land amicably and the suit land fell in the share of Nandeswar Dutta. These defendants claimed that the suit land had been in possession of Nandeswar Dutta since 1939 and after his death they have been possessing the same. They produced Exhibit-11 document of 1939 to claim that there was amicable partition of the land in the year 1939 itself. It is a certified copy obtained from the court of the learned Munsiff. Exhibit-I is a general power of attorney given by the other co-sharers of the D.W. 1 authorising him to depose on their behalf. Exhibit-II is a letter addressed by the P.W.1 to the Managers of SBI, UBI, UCBI, Allahabad Bank etc on 29.06.2005 objecting to the prayer made by the plaintiffs for getting loan by mortgaging the suit land. It contains seal of these respective banks purportedly in acknowledgement of receipt of the letters. In this letter D.W.1 has claimed that the suit land has been under possession of him and his co-sharers since 1939 and that they have been cultivating the same. Exhibit-III is a certificate given by Yakub Ali Town Gaonburah of North Lakhimpur testifying that D.W.1 and his brothers are in possession of the suit land all along. Exhibit-IV is the certified copy of the aforesaid order in C.R. Case No. 748 of 1939 by the court of learned SDO North Lakhimpur showing that there was amicable partition among Debendra Dutta, Nandeswar Dutta and Tileswar Dutta and the suit land was covered therein. Exhibit-IV is the certified copy of the aforesaid order in C.R. Case No. 748 of 1939 by the court of learned SDO North Lakhimpur showing that there was amicable partition among Debendra Dutta, Nandeswar Dutta and Tileswar Dutta and the suit land was covered therein. Exhibit-V series are the revenue receipts deposited by the defendants in respect of the ancestral property. [15] The plaintiff cross-examined these witnesses but any contradiction could not be elicited from the stand taken by him at the threshold. Same type of evidence was led by the defendant No.2, 3 & 4. D.W. 5 is Yakub Ali who is the Gaonburah of North Lakhimpur town. Although in Paragraph-2 of his examination-in-chief he claimed that the defendants are in possession of the land for over 52 years from the time of their father but in course of his cross-examination, he admitted that he was not aware about what was written in the examination-in-chief and so his evidence in the form of affidavit became unacceptable. D.W.6 is Jalil Alam. He stated that since the year 1999 till 2007 he was working in the estate of defendants. He found that one Nilima Lahon was also neighbour to the Southern border of the suit land and that suit land was all along under possession of the defendants. Except giving some suggestions to these witnesses, the plaintiffs side could not effectively cross-examine him to shake his credibility. Two witnesses, namely, Anima Nath and Kalpana Deka have been shown as D.W.7 by the learned trial court. So for convenience they are shown as D.W.7(A) and D.W.7(B) respectively in the judgment. D.W.7 (A) Anima Nath stated that she was staying near the suit land since 1991 to December 1999 over for 10 years and all along she noticed that the suit land was is under possession of the defendants and that the plaintiff was never seen in enjoyment or possession thereof. This witness does not appear to have been cross-examined by the plaintiffs. Under such circumstances, her examination-in-chief went unrebutted. D.W.7 (B) is Kalpana Deka Executive Magistrate. She has merely proved the order passed by her and the inspection done by her over the suit land while deciding the proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C. This witness does not appear to be necessary or relevant for the purpose of proving possession over the suit land by either of the parties. D.W.7 (B) is Kalpana Deka Executive Magistrate. She has merely proved the order passed by her and the inspection done by her over the suit land while deciding the proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C. This witness does not appear to be necessary or relevant for the purpose of proving possession over the suit land by either of the parties. D.W.8 Loknath Sarmah was Lat Mandal of the area. He also did not make any statement of any relevant fact in regard to title or possession of the suit land. [16] Upon perusal of the evidence adduced by the witnesses of the plaintiffs and the defendants side what is noticeable is that the plaintiffs though claimed that they have in possession of the land from the time of their father but no independent witness could be examined by them in support of their such possession. True, plaintiffs have exhibited Exhibit-3 which was issued in the name of Debandra Nath Dutta, the father of the P.W.1. The defendants do not deny that the suit land does not stand in the name of the plaintiffs. What they have claimed is that the paternal property was partitioned between the two parties in the year 1939. But in view of the close relationship as own brothers, they did not insist on making any change in the records of rights and went on possessing their respective shares of land amicably and peacefully. The dispute arose only when the plaintiff No.1 first wanted to mortgage the land with the State Bank of India for securing loan. According to D.W.1 he objected to the bank leading to compromise between the plaintiff No.1 and the bank and the plaintiffs had to liquidate the loan by way of refund as it came to light that the plaintiffs were never in possession of the land. The defendants brought independent witnesses on the witness box to show that they have been in possession of the suit land. On the other hand, the plaintiff No.2 remained silent in the witness box in regard to date of dispossession. Since it is the specific case of the plaintiffs that they had been in possession of the suit land prior to 14.12.2005, it was incumbent upon the plaintiffs to show that they have been in such possession actually and that they had been thereafter dispossessed by the defendants. Since it is the specific case of the plaintiffs that they had been in possession of the suit land prior to 14.12.2005, it was incumbent upon the plaintiffs to show that they have been in such possession actually and that they had been thereafter dispossessed by the defendants. P.W. 2 did not say a word as to when had the plaintiffs been dispossessed from the suit land. The defendants, on the other hand, at least could substantiate that they had been in possession of the land in the year 1991 as deposed by witness Anima Nath D.W.7(A) and Md. Jalil Alam D.W.6. These depositions of D.W.6 and D.W.7(A) went in record unrebutted and so the defendants have succeeded to prove that they had been in possession of the land since 1991 to 1999. From evidence led by the parties in so far as the question of possession is concerned, it is clear that the plaintiff have miserably failed to prove the date of dispossession. Having specifically pleaded that they were dispossessed on 14.12.2005 no evidence could be led on this point and so the suit of the plaintiff must fail. Since it has been proved that the defendants have been in possession of the suit land since 1991 and the suit has been filed in the year 2005, it clearly proves the suit of the plaintiffs is barred by limitation. [17] The learned trial court in Paragraph-23 of the judgment held that the plaintiffs have right, title and interest over the suit land and that the plaintiffs have been able to prove that they did not dispossess the defendants rather the defendants had dispossessed the plaintiffs from the land. This finding of the learned trial court is apparently perverse as no iota of evidence to support the view has been adduced. The plaintiffs having claimed that they had been in possession till 14.12.2005 unless they proved the date of dispossession it is not possible to find out as to whether the suit has been filed within the period of limitation. The finding of the learned trial court in regard to Paragraph-23 of the judgment being based on no evidence, such a finding cannot be upheld. The impugned judgment and decree passed on this finding, therefore, is liable to be set aside and it is accordingly set aside. [18] Consequently, appeal stands allowed in part. The finding of the learned trial court in regard to Paragraph-23 of the judgment being based on no evidence, such a finding cannot be upheld. The impugned judgment and decree passed on this finding, therefore, is liable to be set aside and it is accordingly set aside. [18] Consequently, appeal stands allowed in part. The judgment and decree passed declaring that the plaintiffs have been dispossessed from the suit land not having been substantiated by evidence, the decree in so far it relates to recovery of possession by evicting the defendants cannot be upheld. The suit of the plaintiffs having been found to be barred by limitation, declaration of title also cannot stand. The title of the plaintiffs, if there any, has been extinguished under Section 27 of the limitation Act. Accordingly, impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court is set aside and the suit of the plaintiffs is dismissed. [19] No order as to costs. [20] Send down the records. Draw up the decree accordingly.