2017 (3) TMI 1853 - DSC - Companies Law

Seeking recovery of possession of land - mutation of the suit - defendant by taking advantage of absence of the plaintiff s company illegally and unauthorizedly trespassed and occupied the suit land and illegally got his name mutated in the records of rights - maintainability of suit - whether the learned Trial Court had rightly decided the issue No.1 in the negative against the plaintiff/appellant? - HELD THAT - It is held that the plaintiff company was in existence on the day of filing of the instant suit. It is also held that the suit has been filed within the period of limitation. However, it is held that the suit has not been instituted by the authorized person of the Company. The suit is accordingly held to be not maintainable. The decision of the learned Trial Court in respect of issue no.1 is accordingly partly modified and held that the suit is not maintainable. Whether the learned Trial Court rightly held that plaintiff has right, title and interest over the suit land? - HELD THAT - The plaintiff failed to prove the execution of the Sale Deed(Exhibit-3). The Sale Deed exhibit-3 did not complete 30 years on the day it was filed in Court and even on the day it was tendered as evidence. Even otherwise, the presumption under section 90 Evidence Act does not absolve the plaintiff of his burden to prove title over the suit land on the strength of the Sale deed, as required under the law - the learned Trial Court in Issue No.2 is accordingly set aside and it is held that the plaintiff has no right, title and interest over the suit land. Uninterrupted continuous peaceful possession and occupation of the suit land - HELD THAT - The defendant Sri Parag Gogoi as DW1 has exhibited the certified copy of Jamabandi of P.P No.21 dated 03.02.2000 as Ext.A, the possession certificate dated 07.02.1996 in respect of the suit land as Ext.B, the land revenue receipts w.e.f 1995 to 2009 as Ext. Nos.J to U, construction permission of TDA dated 07.03.2000 as Ext.X. The possession of the defendant over the suit land has been admitted by the plaintiff also. As the plaintiff has failed to prove his right, title and interest over the suit land and as the instant suit is not maintainable, he is not entitled to recover the possession of the suit land from the defendant - The decision of the learned Trial Court in Issue No.3 is affirmed. Right, title and interest over the suit land - HELD THAT - As the suit of the plaintiff is held to be not maintainable and as the plaintiff has failed to prove his right, title and interest over the suit land, the plaintiff is not entitled to the reliefs prayed for. And as the defendant has not prayed for any relief in the suit, the question of granting relief to the defendant does not arise. The plaintiff company was in existence at the time of filing the suit and that the suit has been filed within the period of limitation, but it is held that the suit has not been filed by the authorized person of the plaintiff company. The ultimate decision of the learned Trial Court in holding the suit as not-maintainable is affirmed. The appellant is not entitled to any relief - The appeal is dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the suit is maintainable.
2. Whether the plaintiff has right, title, and interest over the suit land.
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover possession of the suit land from the defendant.
4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the reliefs prayed for.
5. To what other reliefs (if any), the parties are entitled to.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Whether the suit is maintainable:
The trial court initially decided that the suit was not maintainable, as the plaintiff company was struck off from the Register of Companies. However, the High Court's order dated 04.10.2010 revived the company's status to 'Active'. The appellate court noted that this order was binding and must be taken into account. Despite the revival, the suit was not validly instituted since the director who filed the suit was not authorized by the company's Memorandum and Articles of Association, and there was no ratification by other directors. Therefore, the appellate court held that the suit was not maintainable.

2. Whether the plaintiff has right, title, and interest over the suit land:
The plaintiff claimed ownership based on a registered sale deed (Exhibit-3). The trial court presumed the validity of the registered document. However, the appellate court found that the plaintiff failed to prove the execution of the sale deed as required by section 68 of the Evidence Act. The plaintiff did not present the scribe or attesting witnesses, and the sale deed did not bear the purchaser's signature. Additionally, the plaintiff failed to prove possession of the suit land. Thus, the appellate court set aside the trial court's decision and held that the plaintiff had no right, title, or interest over the suit land.

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover possession of the suit land from the defendant:
The defendant claimed adverse possession since 1990. The appellate court noted that the plaintiff admitted the defendant's possession but failed to prove their own title and interest. Consequently, the plaintiff was not entitled to recover possession. The trial court's decision on this issue was affirmed.

4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the reliefs prayed for:
Given that the suit was not maintainable and the plaintiff failed to prove title and interest, the appellate court held that the plaintiff was not entitled to any reliefs. The trial court's decision on this issue was affirmed.

5. To what other reliefs (if any), the parties are entitled to:
The appellate court concluded that since the plaintiff's suit was not maintainable and they failed to prove their case, no further reliefs were warranted. The trial court's decision on this issue was affirmed.

Conclusion:
The appellate court dismissed the appeal and allowed the cross-appeal filed by the respondent. The trial court's judgment was partly set aside regarding the issue of the plaintiff's right, title, and interest over the suit land. The plaintiff's suit was ultimately held to be not maintainable, and they were not entitled to any reliefs. The parties were directed to bear their own costs.