Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 520 (GAU)

Indra Kumar Singha v. Ibungabi Singh

2016-06-07

N.CHAUDHURY

body2016
ORDER : 1. This Second Appeal is directed against the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by two Courts below. The learned trial Court decreed Title Suit No.53/1989 declaring jote right of the plaintiff over the suit land and for recovery of khas possession by evicting the defendant No.1. This trial Court judgment and decree dated 05.12.1999 has been upheld by the learned First Appellate Court in Title Appeal No.9/2000 by judgment and decree dated 18.05.2004. These two judgments have been called in question in the present Second Appeal on behalf of the defendants. 2. The aforesaid Title Suit No.53/1989 was instituted by Ingenjao Singha, predecessor of the present respondents, in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) No.2, Hailakandi stating that the suit land measuring 5 kathas covered by Dag No.169 of 2nd R.S. Patta No.87 along with other land was held by his father Suro Singha on assertion of jote right under the landlord Narendra Singha. After his death the immoveable property left behind by Suro Singha was amicably partitioned among his three sons, namely, Babu Singha, Indra Kumar Singha and Ingenjao Singha and three daughters relinquished their share in favour of the brothers. The defendant No.1 subsequently forcefully took over possession of the suit land on 20.12.1992 during absence of the plaintiff and refused to vacate the same even after the plaintiff had requested him to do so. Under such circumstances institution of the suit became necessary for declaration of jote right of the plaintiff over the suit land and for recovery of khas possession by evicting the defendant No.1 Indra Kumar Singha. 3. On being summoned the defendant No.1, Indra Kumar Singha, appeared and submitted written statement denying the case of the plaintiff. According to him, the eldest son of Suro Singha, viz., Babu Singha, was given a separate share of 3 poa land and the suit land was jointly held by Ingenjao Singha and Indra Kumar Singha i.e. the plaintiff and the defendant No.1. The defendant No.1 never dispossessed the plaintiff from the suit land and both of them having inherited the jote right of Suro Singha there was no question of declaration of exclusive jote right of the plaintiff or for eviction of the defendant No.1 from the suit land. The defendant No.1 never dispossessed the plaintiff from the suit land and both of them having inherited the jote right of Suro Singha there was no question of declaration of exclusive jote right of the plaintiff or for eviction of the defendant No.1 from the suit land. He further claimed to have purchased title of the suit land from Birendra Singha, son of Narendra Singha, which he subsequently sold to his two sons, namely, defendant Nos.15 and 16, by registered deed of transfer in the year 1992 and 1993. The suit land measuring 6 kathas was thus the property of the defendant No.1 and the plaintiff did not have any right, title and interest over it. With these averments the defendant No.1 prayed that the suit of the plaintiff be dismissed. 4. The defendant Nos.15 and 16, who are none other than the sons of the defendant No.1, filed a similar written statement claiming title over the suit land on the basis of purchase from their father in the year 1992-1993. 5. The learned trial Court on the basis of the aforesaid pleadings of the parties framed following 10 issues :- “(i) Is there any cause of action? (ii) Is the suit maintainable in its present form? (iii) Is the suit barred by limitation? (iv) Is the suit barred by waiver, estoppels and acquiescence? (v) Is the suit bad for mis-jonder and non-joinder of parties? (vi) Is the suit land an ancestral property? (vii) Is there any forcible dispossession of the suit land? (viii) I the suit land owned by Sri Narendra Singha as alleged by the plaintiff ? (ix) Whether the suit land is maintainable without proper and effective partition of the land of all pattas of predecessor of the parties? (x) To what relief, the plaintiff is entitled?” 6. In course of trial plaintiff examined three witnesses including himself while the defendant No.1 also examined three witnesses including himself. All the witnesses were cross-examined by the respective other sides. The learned trial Court thereafter passed the impugned judgment dated 15.12.1999 holding that the suit land is the ancestral property of the plaintiff and the principal defendant and that it falls in the share of plaintiff Ingenjao Singha. The three sons of Late Suro Singha separately possessed the properties left behind by Suro Singha with proper boundary and demarcation although there was no document in regard to partition. The three sons of Late Suro Singha separately possessed the properties left behind by Suro Singha with proper boundary and demarcation although there was no document in regard to partition. Since admittedly Suro Singha, father of the plaintiff and the defendant No.1, had jote right over the suit land, the same devolved on the plaintiff with respect to the land under his possession. Even PW 1, Babu Singha and PW 3, Sunil Chandra Dey, a boundary witness, supported the case of the plaintiff saying that after death of Suro Singha the properties were partitioned among his three sons while the three daughters relinquished their claim in favour of their brothers. The suit land all along had been under possession of the plaintiff and fell in his share but the defendant No.1 forcefully occupied the same because of which there was a vichar among the family members to which the defendant No.1 did not pay heed. PW 1 is none other than elder brother of the plaintiff and the defendant No.1 and so there was no reason on the part of the learned trial Court to disbelieve this witness. PW 1 said in no uncertain terms that there was a partition among the three sons with respect to the ancestral property left behind by Suro Singha and that the suit land had fallen in the share of the plaintiff. On the face of such specific evidence led by the plaintiff the learned trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff in entirety declaring his jote right over the suit land and decreeing eviction of the defendant No.1 from the suit land. It may be noted that during pendency of the suit the original plaintiff died and his legal heirs were arrayed as substituted plaintiffs. 7. The defendant Nos.1, 15 and 16 as appellants preferred Title Appeal No.9/2000 in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Hailalkandi challenging the aforesaid judgment and decree dated 15.12.1999 passed by the learned trial Court. The learned First Appellate Court having considered the evidence led by the parties re-framed the issues under three points for determination. Reframing of the issues are nothing but framing of points for determination under Order XLI Rule 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the same are quoted below :- “(i) Is there any cause of action? (ii) Is the suit maintainable without a prayer for partition? Reframing of the issues are nothing but framing of points for determination under Order XLI Rule 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the same are quoted below :- “(i) Is there any cause of action? (ii) Is the suit maintainable without a prayer for partition? (iii) Whether the property left by original joth holder – Late Soru Sigha was partitioned among his legal heirs and the suit schedule land falls in the share of deceased plaintiff – Imenjaw Singha and then he was dispossessed forcibly by the answering defendants?” 8. The learned First Appellate Court thereafter held that there is cause of action for the suit as the plaintiff asserted his fact which was disputed by the defendants and so the first point for determination was decided in the affirmative. Coming to the point No.3 for determination the learned First Appellate Court considered the evidence led by both sides. The deposition of Babu Singha as PW 1 was appreciated by the learned First Appellate Court in due earnest. This is because Babu Singha happens to be the elder brother of both the plaintiff and the defendant No.1. He supported the plaintiff on the point that there was partition among the three brothers and each of them got 3 poas of land in their share. The suit land fell in the share of the plaintiff. The learned First Appellate Court considered a document marked ‘X’ produced by DW 1 in the course of deposition whereby he claimed to have sold a plot of land measuring 1 bigha 9 chattak in favour of the plaintiff on 11.05.1988 on receipt of consideration of Rs.3000/-. The defendant No.1 produced this document to assert that he had given this plot of land to the plaintiff on the condition to get back the suit land measuring 6 kathas. The defendant No.1 executed registered deed in favour of the plaintiff for exchange on 11.05.1988 but the plaintiff did not execute any document in favour of the defendant No.1 to hand over 6 kathas of land described in the schedule to the plaint. According to DW 1, the plaintiff cheated him by not executing any document but he really got the possession of the land on the basis of vichar held by his elder brother in presence of his sisters. According to DW 1, the plaintiff cheated him by not executing any document but he really got the possession of the land on the basis of vichar held by his elder brother in presence of his sisters. The learned First Appellate Court, however, considered this document marked ‘X’ and did not find anything in the document to accept the contention of the DW 1 that it was a document of conditional sale. The learned First Appellate Court held that it is a document of clear sale on receipt of consideration of Rs.3000/- and so the oral evidence of the defendant No.1 in respect of exchange was not believable. The learned First Appellate Court accordingly refused to accept the explanation given by the defendant No.1 on the basis of document marked “X’ dismissed the appeal holding that there was partition among the three sons of Late Suro Singha, father of both plaintiff and defendant No.1 and that the suit land fall in the share of the plaintiff. Having so decided it was held that defendant No.1 must have trespassed into the suit land as otherwise he was not supposed to be in possession of the suit land. This judgment and decree of the learned First Appellate Court passed on 18.05.2004 have been called in question in the present Second Appeal by the unsuccessful defendant No.1 and his two sons. 9. This Court while admitting the Second Appeal on 24.01.2005 framed the following substantial question of law :- “Whether the learned Court below misconstrued the transaction between the parties contained in Ext-X to be out and out sale and not one to be conditional sale/transaction as envisaged under Section 25 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1982 by overlooking the material evidence on record?” 10. I have heard Mr. P. K. Deka, learned counsel for the appellant. No one has come forward to argue on behalf of the respondents in the present case although names of as many as three learned lawyers have been distinctly disclosed in the cause list. I have perused the lower court records including the depositions of PWs 1, 2 and 3 as well as DWs 1, 2 and 3. I have also perused the document marked ‘X’ which was not formally exhibited. 11. Mr. I have perused the lower court records including the depositions of PWs 1, 2 and 3 as well as DWs 1, 2 and 3. I have also perused the document marked ‘X’ which was not formally exhibited. 11. Mr. P.K. Deka, learned counsel for the appellant, argues that the defendant No.1 was constrained to hand over possession of land measuring 1 bigha 9 chattaks to the plaintiff in view of the settlement arrived at in the house of Babu Singha (PW 1) 25/30 days prior to the institution of the suit when the plaintiff had complained to their elder brother and sisters about purchase of title of the suit land by the defendant No.1 from original owner Birendra Singha. It was decided that while defendant No.1 would hand over a plot of land measuring 1 bigha 9 chattaks to the plaintiff the plaintiff would hand over the suit land measuring 6 kathas to the defendant No.1. There was handing over of possession but no execution of document. The plaintiff resiled from the promise after having obtained a sale deed executed in his favour which is marked as ‘X’ and so there was no dispossession of the plaintiff from the suit land. The findings of the learned Courts below on this point are perverse. 12. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant I have analysed the findings of the learned Courts below vis-à-vis the depositions of PW 1, PW 2 and PW 3 as well as the depositions of DW 1, DW 2 and DW 3 along with the document marked ‘X’. PW 1 stated in no uncertain terms that after death of Suro Singha the immoveable properties under his possession on assertion of jote right were separated among the three sons, namely, Babu Singha, Indra Kumar Singha and In Genjaw Singha. Each of them got three poas of land and all of them were possessing their share separately. While there was no dispute with respect to three poas of land under possession of Babu Singha (PW 1) the defendant (DW 1) forcefully occupied 6 kathas of land which was under possession of the plaintiff. Under such circumstances there was a vichar among the family members in the house of PW 1 but the DW 1 did not pay any heed to it. Under such circumstances there was a vichar among the family members in the house of PW 1 but the DW 1 did not pay any heed to it. PW 3 who is a neighbor being a boundary witness deposed on oath that plaintiff was always in possession of the suit land but subsequently the defendant No.1 dispossessed him for which the suit had been instituted by the plaintiff. PW 2 is none other than the plaintiff and he deposed in the same manner as pleaded in the plaint. The defendant No.1, on the other hand, produced the aforesaid document dated 11.05.1988 and the same was marked as ‘X’. The document discloses that it is out and out a deed of sale which was duly registered before the jurisdictional Sub-Registrar. It does not speak of any exchange. The DW 1, however, asserts in course of oral evidence that document marked ‘X’ was executed in anticipation of getting a similar document from the plaintiff but he subsequently resiled from the promise. Such an oral evidence of the plaintiff contrary to the documentary evidence is liable to be excluded under Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Rather, this document only goes to show that parties were in possession of their respective shares exclusively and this is why either the question of sale or exchange could arise. Having so found it is not possible to hold that there was no partition between the plaintiff and the defendant No.1 in any point of time. Once it is proved that there was partition among the three sons of Suro Singha, the basic case of the defendant No.1 that he was in constructive possession of the suit land all along cannot be accepted. The learned Courts below have not committed any error in holding that the plaintiff owned and possessed the suit land in his share pursuant to amicable partition and he was subsequently dispossessed by the defendant merely one year before the institution of the suit. The document marked ‘X’ being out and out a registered sale deed the sole substantial question of law framed by this Court is liable to be decided in the negative and against the appellant. 13. The Second Appeal is devoid of any merit. It is accordingly dismissed. No order as to cost. Interim order, if any, shall stand automatically vacated. The document marked ‘X’ being out and out a registered sale deed the sole substantial question of law framed by this Court is liable to be decided in the negative and against the appellant. 13. The Second Appeal is devoid of any merit. It is accordingly dismissed. No order as to cost. Interim order, if any, shall stand automatically vacated. Send down the records immediately after framing of the decree.