Tripura High Court: An appeal was filed under Section 96 read with Order 41 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 by appellants against the judgment and preliminary decree dated 05-04-2022 delivered by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Court No.1, West Tripura, Agartala (‘the Trial Court’). Biswajit Palit, J., opined that appellants could not show any satisfactory document of title regarding the exclusive ownership of their predecessor over the entire suit land before the Trial Court and even before this Court, at the time of hearing of arguments. The Court thus held that the entry in revenue records did not confer any title over the suit property, therefore, the submission of appellants that their predecessor was the absolute owner of the suit land could not be accepted.
Background
Respondent filed a partition suit before the Trial Court seeking partition of the land. Respondent submitted that his father, Benimadhab Roy and Ram Dulal Roy were the predecessors of appellants. Respondent’s father expired in 1986 leaving behind two daughters i.e., respondent and his son Ram Dulal Roy as his only legal heirs to succeed to his property as per law for inheritance and succession. After respondent’s father death, his son and daughters inherited the said property in equal share. Respondents alleged that on 08-01-2016 they requested Ram Dulal Roy for amicable partition of the suit land, which was recorded in his name, but it was all in vain.
Respondent thereafter filed a petition for correction of RoR in respect of the suit land recorded in khatian and it was further alleged that tehsildar of Uttar Champamura went for field enquiry but on 26-10-2017, Ram Dulal Roy threatened respondents. Respondents later filed the partition suit and on receipt of summons, Ram Dulal Roy appeared and contested the same by filing a written statement, wherein he admitted that the suit land belonged to his father and also admitted that respondents were also the legal heirs of Benimadhab Roy but Ram Dulal Roy questioned the maintainability of the suit and submitted that record of right was prepared in his name based on possession. Thus, he submitted that no decree could be passed against him and prayed for dismissal of the suit with costs.
In the meantime, Ram Dulal Roy expired, and his legal heirs were substituted i.e., appellants and proforma-respondent and despite of receiving summons they did not appear before the Court and thus, based on the evidence on record of respondent and on perusal of the documentary evidence on record, the Trial Court delivered the judgment.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court noted that the present case was based on two khatians and the suit land originally belonged to respondent’s father and after his death, the suit land dwelled upon respondent and Ram Dulal Roy, who were the legal heirs of respondent’s father. The Court also noted that presently the suit land was lying vacant and Ram Dulal Roy, during his lifetime on receipt of summons from the Court, appeared and filed a written statement. In the written statement, Ram Dulal Roy only took the plea that he possessed the suit land since long back and the record of rights was prepared in his name.
The Court stated that after Ram Dulal Roy’s death, appellants and proforma-respondent were substituted but despite of receipt of summons, they did not appear before the Trial Court nor adduced any oral/documentary evidence on record. Even after the death of Ram Dulal Roy also, they did not think it necessary to contest the suit, therefore, the Court stated that the story of non-receipt of summons by appellants or their ignorance about the suit could not be accepted.
The Court noted that the Trial Court concluded that no inference could be drawn from the Exhibits that Ram Dulal Roy was the lawful owner of the suit land as the khatians did not confer any title.
The Court opined that appellants could not show any satisfactory document of title regarding the exclusive ownership of their predecessor over the entire suit land before the Trial Court and even before this Court, at the time of hearing of arguments. The Court opined that there was no scope to take any presumption of absolute ownership over the suit land by their predecessor. Therefore, the Court held that the submission of counsel for appellants that their predecessor was the absolute owner of the suit land could not be accepted because the entry in revenue records did not confer any title over the suit property. The Court stated that the decision in Sarada Bala Roy v. Gouranga Chandra Roy, 2019 SCC OnLine Tri 206, referred to by respondent was significant and relevant for the decision of the present case.
The Court relied on B.R. Patil v. Tulsa Y. Sawkar, 2022 SCC Online SC 240 and opined that appellants in course of hearing of arguments could not satisfy the Court that since it was a joint family property, so, the plea of appellants that their predecessor was in possession of the entire suit land could not be deemed to be adverse for other co-sharers unless there had been ouster of other co-sharers and there was no such evidence on record like that.
The Court stated that the contention that appellants and their predecessor acquired the right of adverse possession over the suit land could not be accepted at this stage in the absence of cogent evidence on record. Thus, the Court held that the trial Court after elaborate discussions and considering all the aspects rightly delivered the judgment and there was no perversity on that.
The Court dismissed the appeal as being devoid of merit. Thus, the judgment and preliminary decree dated 05-04-2022 delivered by the Trial Court was upheld and accordingly was affirmed.
The Court noted that presently the case was pending for hearing on the report of Survey Commissioner and thus directed that the Trial Court after proper hearing of both the parties and affording opportunity shall consider the report of Survey Commissioner and if required, a fresh Survey Commission be conducted for this purpose the cost of which would be borne by the respective parties and thereafter shall pass a final decree.
[Puspa Rani Das (Roy) v. Maya Rani Das (Roy), 2024 SCC OnLine Tri 465, decided on 04-07-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Appellants: S. Pandit, S. Das, Advocates
For the Respondents: Samarjit Bhattacharjee, Advocate