2007 (5) TMI 646 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the suit is within the limitation period.
2. Whether the plaintiff is in possession of the suit property.
3. Ownership and title of the suit property.
4. Whether the suit property belongs to the State.
5. Relief, costs, and compensatory costs.

Summary:

Issue 1: Limitation Period
The court addressed whether the suit was within the limitation period. It was concluded that the suit was not barred by limitation.

Issue 2: Possession of the Suit Property
The court found that the plaintiff and defendant No. 2 had been in possession of the suit land. The State did not produce evidence to counter the plaintiff's claim of possession.

Issue 3: Ownership and Title of the Suit Property
The court examined the historical ownership of the property, noting that it was purchased in 1859 by the ancestors of the plaintiff and defendant No. 2. The property was inherited by Smt. Putari Sethani and subsequently by the plaintiff and defendant No. 2. The court found that the plaintiff and defendant No. 2 had proved their title and possession.

Issue 4: Whether the Suit Property Belongs to the State
The court scrutinized the State's claim that the land was Nazul land and thus belonged to the State. The court noted that the Settlement Commissioner had previously determined that no lease deed was executed, and the property should be deemed to be held by the plaintiff's predecessor as a perpetual lessee. The court found the State's reliance on revenue records insufficient to establish ownership, as these records could not override the lawful title acquired by the auction purchaser.

Issue 5: Relief, Costs, and Compensatory Costs
The court set aside the judgments of the High Court and the Trial Judge, decreeing the suit in favor of the plaintiff. The appeal was allowed with costs, and counsel's fee was assessed at Rs. 25,000.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court found that the plaintiff and defendant No. 2 had established their title and possession of the suit property. The State failed to prove its ownership or the character of the land as Nazul land. The court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff, allowing the appeal with costs.