2015 (6) TMI 1250 - HC - Indian Laws

Court rules in favor of appellants in land ownership dispute, finding defendant's evidence lacking.

Jyotish Deka and Ors. Versus Gajendra Deka and Ors.

The court ruled in favor of the appellants in a land ownership dispute case. The defendant's claim of ownership based on mutation entries and an oral sale ... Interest of the actual owner of the land inspite of admission of the defendant in cross examination - adverse possession by dint of possession for 8 & 9 years by the defendant can have the right, title and interest by right of adverse possession under Article 64 of the Limitation Act - Chitha mutation can provide the claim of right, title and interest of the defendant over the suit land without having any proof of transfer of title under the transfer of Property Act - inheritance of the property of the person not known for seven years, there is requirement of any declaration under the law for devolution of the land and mutation to the sole legal heir - HELD THAT:- Admitted position of the case is that no sale deed was executed by the father of the plaintiffs to the defendant Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 provides that transfer of tangible immovable property of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards can be made only by a registered instrument. In case the value of the tangible immovable property is less than one hundred rupees, such transfer may be made either by a registered instrument or by delivery of the property and the delivery of tangible immovable property takes place when the seller places the buyer, or such person as he directs, in possession of the property. On the face of this evidence, statutory period of 12 years was not completed to enable the defendant to claim title on the basis of adverse possession. Not only the defendant himself, but his witness D.W.6 also deposed that he had seen Rajendra being in possession of the suit land during his lifetime. The defendant miserably failed to prove the plea regarding adverse possession. The learned lower Appellate Court overlooked the most material part of the evidence of D.W. 1 defendant himself and recorded a perverse finding mat defendant established the plea of adverse possession. The substantial questions of law will have to be answered in favour of the appellants. The appeal is allowed. Issues:1. Dispute over land ownership and mutation entries.2. Validity of oral sale without a registered instrument.3. Claim of adverse possession by the defendant.4. Interpretation of substantial questions of law framed by the court.Dispute over land ownership and mutation entries:The plaintiffs claimed ownership of land previously possessed by their father, alleging that the defendant had falsely mutated his name in the land records. The defendant argued that he acquired the land through an oral sale from the plaintiffs' father, despite no sale deed being executed. The court noted that mutation entries do not confer title and found the defendant's claim of ownership based on mutation to be untenable. The court highlighted the lack of a registered instrument for the alleged sale, emphasizing the legal requirement for transfer of tangible immovable property.Validity of oral sale without a registered instrument:The court examined the defendant's assertion of an oral sale transaction for the land in question. It was revealed that no sale deed was executed, and the consideration amount was not clearly specified in the written statement. The defendant's claim of payment towards the consideration amount was insufficient to establish a valid sale under the Transfer of Property Act. The court emphasized the legal necessity of a registered instrument for transferring tangible immovable property, especially for transactions involving a value exceeding one hundred rupees.Claim of adverse possession by the defendant:The defendant contended that he had acquired ownership of the land through adverse possession, claiming to have been in possession for over 12 years. However, the court found discrepancies in the defendant's evidence regarding the possession timeline. Witness statements contradicted the defendant's claim, with clear indications that the plaintiffs' father remained in possession until his death. The court ruled that the defendant failed to prove adverse possession, highlighting the statutory requirement of a 12-year possession period for such claims.Interpretation of substantial questions of law framed by the court:The court addressed the substantial questions of law framed during the proceedings, focusing on key legal issues raised by the parties. It was noted that the defendant's arguments regarding adverse possession and oral sale were not substantiated by the evidence presented. The court emphasized the importance of adhering to legal requirements for property transactions and dismissed the lower appellate court's judgment. Ultimately, the court ruled in favor of the appellants, setting aside the lower appellate court's decision and restoring the trial court's decree without imposing any costs.