Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 806 (GAU)

Sayed Uhab Ali v. Abbas Ali

2015-06-25

A.K.GOSWAMI

body2015
ORDER : Heard Mr. A. Iqbal, learned counsel for the appellants. Also heard Mr. C. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree dated 06.12.2005 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.) No.1, Kamrup, Guwahati in Title Appeal No.7/2001 upholding and confirming the judgment and decree dated 06.12.2000 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.) Rangia in Title Suit No.1/1994, whereby the suit was decreed. 3. The second appeal was admitted to be heard by an order dated 24.03.2006 on the following substantial questions of law: “1. Whether the plaintiffs’ right, title and interest over the suit land can be declared on the basis of the Jamabandi, copy of mutation and land revenue receipt i.e. land record only ? 2. Whether for non consideration of the title documents on behalf of the appellants marked as Exts.Ka, Kha, Ga and Gha has resulted into perverse finding ?” 4. The plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration of right, title and interest in respect of 1 Bigha 1 Katha out of total 7 Bigha 4 Katha 11 Lecha in Dag No.145, 153, 150, 147, 149, 143 of K.P. Patta No.4 of Village- Gogmalasha, for confirmation of possession and permanent injunction, etc. 5. The case projected in the plaint is that plaintiff purchased the suit land from pro forma defendant No.20 approximately 26 years ago and since then, he was in possession of the suit land by cultivating the same. He had also constructed a thatched house and mutation was also granted in his favour by and order dated 14.07.1969. It is stated that though principal defendant Nos.1,2 and 3 had purchased some land in the patta, their vendors did not hand over possession and the vendors continued to be in possession and failing to take possession, on 19.12.1993, they forcibly sought to take possession by destroying crops and demolishing thatched house. 6. A written statement was filed by defendant No.4 for himself and on behalf of the defendant Nos.2,3,5 to 16 and 18 to 20. Defendant No.1 died during the pendency of the suit and he was represented by defendant No.2, his wife and his sons, defendant Nos.3 to 7. It is stated that by means of 7 sale deeds, 2 Katha 2 Bigha, 1 Katha 16 ½ lecha was purchased by defendant No.1 and they are in possession of the same. Defendant No.1 died during the pendency of the suit and he was represented by defendant No.2, his wife and his sons, defendant Nos.3 to 7. It is stated that by means of 7 sale deeds, 2 Katha 2 Bigha, 1 Katha 16 ½ lecha was purchased by defendant No.1 and they are in possession of the same. Details of the sale deeds are also given. They had denied the right, title, interest and possession of the plaintiff. 7. The learned Trial Court framed 4 issues, out of which, Issue No.3 was- “Whether the plaintiff has got right, title and possession over the suit land ?” 8. During trial, the plaintiff examined 4 witnesses and defendants examined 7 witnesses including the vendors of the relevant sale deeds, namely, Jubeda Khatun and Samsuddin Ahmed. 9. In order to establish his title, the plaintiff exhibited the Sadar Jamabandi, Ext-1 and the Revenue Receipt, Ext-2. Defendants exhibited the sale deeds in question without any objection as Ext-Ka, Ga and Gha. 10. Both the courts below have held that plaintiff had established his right, title and interest on the basis of the Ext-1. The fact that mutation was accorded in favour of the plaintiff and the fact that the same continued to remain in Jamabandi, persuaded the courts below to take view that the plaintiff has better claim than the defendants. 11. Admitted position is that the plaintiff did not produce any document of title. Though it was pleaded that he had purchased the property from pro forma defendant No.20, no sale deed has been produced. Only documents produced by the plaintiff, as noted above, are the Jamabandi (Ext-1), and the Revenue Receipt (Ext2). It is settled law that mutation entries are only for the purpose of enabling the State to collect land revenues, but it does not confer any title to the land. Title of an immovable property of the value of rupees hundred and above can be derived from an instrument executed by the owner in favour of an transferee duly registered under the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908. In State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Keshav Ram and Ors., reported in (1996) 11 SCC 257 , the Apex Court had held that no decree can be passed on the basis of a correction made in the record of rights and consequential entry in revenue papers. In State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Keshav Ram and Ors., reported in (1996) 11 SCC 257 , the Apex Court had held that no decree can be passed on the basis of a correction made in the record of rights and consequential entry in revenue papers. Same is the position in the instant case. 12. Reliance placed by Mr. Bhattacharjee in Paramesh Sarmah and Ors. vs. Islam Ali and Ors., reported in 2000 (3) GLT 453 is not applicable in the instant case inasmuch as in the aforesaid case, the suit of the plaintiff was decreed by this court on the basis of patta exhibited by the plaintiff, which is always considered to be a document of title. 13. In view of the above discussion, substantial questions of law Nos.1 and 2 are decided against the plaintiffs. Accordingly, I find no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed. No cost. 14. Registry will send back the records.