2013 (10) TMI 1007 - HC - Indian Laws

Title of property - Whether the learned court below misread the evidence of PW4 in concluding that the defendant was a trespasser on the suit land and that the plaintiff had right, title and interest therein, thus vitiating the impugned judgment and order by an error on a substantial question of law - Held that - father of the defendant was a worker of the Tea Estate. The defendant, while examining himself as DW1, had stated that his father had constructed the house in the year 1955 but he never lived there. DW1 had also stated that he was born in the disputed house. He has further stated that he used to live in the house with his wife and other family members. From his own evidence, it appears that he was born sometime in 1946 as he had stated that in cross-examination recorded on 03.08.1991, he was about 45 years old. Therefore, his plea that he was born in that house cannot be accepted. It is on record that father of the defendant retired in the year 1973 and expired in the year 1984 - Evidence of witnesses of plaintiff discloses that father of the defendant was allotted the quarter which is the disputed house. Subsequently, the quarter was allotted to Rajesh, who is husband of PW2. After he had resigned from the services of the Tea Estate, the quarter was allotted to PW2. DW1 had also deposed that Rajesh and Nandi had separated after about 3 years of marriage. There is also evidence that all of them used to reside together in that disputed house and that the defendant forcefully evicted PW2 from the quarter - Decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the plaintiff had right, title, and interest over the suit land.
2. Whether the defendant is a trespasser into the suit premises.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Right, Title, and Interest Over the Suit Land:

The plaintiff, a limited liability company, claimed ownership of the suit premises, which was part of the Dehing Tea Estate. The premises were initially allotted to a permanent worker, Smti Nandi Gore. The defendant allegedly dispossessed her in December 1981 and occupied the premises unauthorizedly. Despite several requests and a legal notice dated 09.10.1985, the defendant did not vacate the premises, leading to the filing of the suit for possession.

The defendant, in his written statement, denied the plaintiff's ownership and claimed that neither the plaintiff nor Smti Nandi Gore ever possessed the suit premises. He asserted that his family had settled on the land since 1918 and that he had been in possession of the land since 1955, which was later allotted to him by the Government of Assam.

The trial court found that the plaintiff had retained 39 Bighas 2 Kathas 15 Lechas of land in Dag No. 59 of Tea Periodic Patta No. 1, while the balance was acquired by the government. The court held that the suit premises were situated over the retained plot of land covered by Dag No. 59, thus deciding the issue in favor of the plaintiff.

The appellate court concurred, noting that the suit premises were within the un-surrendered portion of Dag No. 59 and not in the land allotted to the defendant. The court upheld the plaintiff's right, title, and interest over the suit land.

2. Trespasser Status of the Defendant:

The trial court, based on the evidence, including Ext. 11 (site map), Ext. 10 (allotment letter), and testimony of witnesses, concluded that the defendant was a trespasser. The appellate court also found that the defendant was a trespasser based on the evidence, including the testimony of PW4, which indicated that the suit premises were in the un-surrendered part of Dag No. 59.

The defendant argued that the courts had misappreciated the evidence of PW4, which he claimed established that the suit premises were located in his allotted land. However, the court found no merit in this argument, stating that the evidence did not support the defendant's claim that the disputed land was part of the ceiling surplus land allotted to him.

The court emphasized that the identification of the ceiling surplus land was crucial, and the evidence showed that the disputed land was in Dag No. 59, not in the converted Dag No. 258. The court rejected the defendant's plea of perversity in the appreciation of evidence.

Conclusion:

The court dismissed the second appeal, affirming the concurrent findings of the lower courts that the plaintiff had right, title, and interest over the suit land and that the defendant was a trespasser. The court found no merit in the defendant's arguments and upheld the judgments and decrees of the lower courts.