CRP/3/2005 of Arjun Pradhan and Ors. Vs Ram Kumar Mazi on 28 September 2005

JUDGMENT

N.S. SINGH. CJ. IACTG.I.

The order dated 20.08.2005 passed by the Civil Judge,South District at Namchi in Title suit No. 8 of 2005 is the t.\c,, subject matter under challenge in this revision petition. Thefacts of the case in a short compass are as follows: -

2. The plaintiff, namely, Shri Ram Kumar Mazi,respondent herein filed a civil suit being Title Suit No. 8 of2005 before the Court below for declaration of title, ownershipand title-holder in possession of suit property and otherconsequential reliefs by contending inter alia, that during thelifetime of Dhamey Mazi the remairing portion of land underPlot No. 781 (old) was transferred to the plaintiff throuch aRegistered Sale Deed and the said Dhanrey Mazi wasunmarried person. It is also the case of the plaintiff that inand around 1995 and during the lifetime of the said DhanreyMazi, he has transfeITed through a registered Sale Deed aportion of plot No. 781, measuring more or less 30' x 30' tothe father of the defendants and the plaintiff was presentduring the said transaction. However, to the utter surpriseand dianay of the plaintiff, it was found that the land recordsreflected that a part of the property intended to be sold,measuring more or less 30' x 25', which is morefunydescribed in Schedule a (Suit Property) was recorded in thename of the defendants and that being the position thematter was placed before the District Couector, South Sildimat Nanchi for clarification and the matter was heard by thelearned District Couector, South wherein the defendants claimed that their father had purchased 30' x 55' and not30' x 30' and as such the suit property belong to them. Butthe defendants were unable to produce the original Sale Deeddespite the direction of District Collector, South Sikkjm onflimsy preteat and contended that their father had misplacedthe same and their claim is based on Thatiyan Parcha.

3. The case of the plaintiff was resisted by thedefendants by filing written statement and by contendinginter alia, that they have been in occupation of the suit landsince 1995 along with their late father, who purchased thesame from late Dhanrey Mazi under a registered Sale Deed. Itis also the case of the defendants that late Dhanrey Mazi soldthe land measuring 0.0180 Hect. to the father of thedefendants, the petitioners herein.

A preliminary objection was raised by thedefendants before the Court below that the suit is baITed bylimitation. Upon hearing the parties, learned Court belowopined that the suit was filed on 11.11.2004 which is withinthe period of limitation and accordingiv, the plea of linitationraised by the defendants was rejected. I have perused theimpugned order. The relevant observations of the Courtbelow is important in the case in hand and accordingly, it isquotedbelow: - .

•.\c#

"Article 58 of the Limitation Act, 1968 providesthe period of limitation to be 3 years for obtainingany other declarations.

This instant suit is ffled for declaration of titleand ownership. In the facts and circumstances ofthis case, I find Article 113 of the Limitation Actwould be apphicable. Article 113, Liniitation Act is an`omnibus article' and includes all suits hotspecifically provided' for elsewhere in the schedule.The period of liniitation under Article 113 LimitationAct is 3 years and the time begins to run when theright to sue accrues.

According to the contention made by theDefendant the Plaintiff vide his sale deed dated22.11.1999 had knowledge of the alleged illegality.However, I find that the sale deed dated 22.11.1999does not indicate the knowledge of alleged inegalityby the Defendants.

Iud. Counsel for the Defendants mentioned thatas per paragraph 15 of the plaint, the cause of actionfirst arouse on February, 2000 when the suit plotwas registered in the nane of plaintiff. It issubmitted that the Ld. Counsel for the Defendantshas oniitted to read the continuation to thissentence. It continues that; "in and around themonth of February, 2004 when the sale deed waspresented for registration and ot)jected by theDefendants".

I find that in a suit for declaration of title andownership of suit land, time begins to run when thePlaintiff becomes aware that his ownership ischallenged. A richt is said to accrue only when thereis an actual accrual of the right asserted in the suitand its infringement or at least clear and unequivocalthreat to infrange that right by the Defendantagainst whom the suit is instituted.

Paragraph 15 of the Plaintiff read as a whole isclear that on February, 2004, when the Plaintiffpresented the sale deed for registration, it wasobjected by the Defendants. February 2004 is the a.\cgiv, t,`,.I, first occasion when the Plaintiff became aware thathis title and ownership was being challenged.

This suit filed on 11.11.2004 is within theperiod of limitation. Hence, the plea of linritationraised by the Defendants is rejected."

In my considered view the impugned order is areasoned order and as such no interference is called for. It iswell settled that mere recording of mane(s) in the records ofrights including Khatian does not confer any right or title ofany land. Under the law, a registered Sale Deed is a titledeed. In the case in hand, the defendants could not producerelated original Registered Sale Deed. It is also well settledthat records of richts is revisable by the competent authority.In this regard a reference is made to a decision of the ApexCourt rendered in State of West Bengal and others v.Suburban Agriculture Dairy & Fisheries P`7t. Ltd. andanother reported in AIR 1993 SC 2103 and, if the order ofRevenue Officer in mutation proceedings based on untruepiece of evidence has no evidentiary value in civil suit (seeDayaram and others v. Dawalatshah and another reportedin AIR 1971 SC 681). Therefore, the contention of thelearned counsel for the petitioners that recording of the nameof the late father of the petitioners (defendants) in the matianunder the related mutation order is a title deed which cannot

Conclusion

be challenged by the plaintiff, holds a little water.

For the reasons, observations and discussionmade above, I am of the view that the petitioners could notmake out a case to justify the interference with the impugriedorder.

In the result, the petition is devoid of merit andaccordingly, it is dismissed thus affirming the impugriedorder passed by the Court below, with a cost of Rs.3000/-(Rupees three thousand) only which shall be treated as partof the fund of the Si]ddm Bar Association for which thepetitioners shall deposit the same with the Registry of thisCourt within a period of one week from today and after suchdeposit the authority of Sikldm Bar Association is at liberty towithdraw the same from the Registry of this Court. A copy ofthis Order be communicated to the Court below. Registry isto act accordingly.

( N.S. SINGH )cH[EF -usTlcE (Ac'rlNG)28.09.2cO5