On 19.06.1986, Smriti Debbarma, as an attorney and on behalf of Maharani Chandratara Devi, had filed Title Suit No 66 of 1986, inter alia praying for declaration that Maharani Chandratara Devi is the owner of the property known as ‘ Khosh Mahal ’, described in Schedule ‘ A ’ to the original plaint, as under: “ S C H E D U L E – A. Prayer for direction to the Director of Settlement and Land Records to issue a record of rights in the name of the plaintiff for the Schedule ‘A’ property, and to confirm the possession of the plaintiff of the Schedule ‘A’ property was made.
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/case-type/civil/inherent-jurisdiction-and-invalid-decree-a-case-summary/
Smriti Debbarma was substituted as the plaintiff, as the legal representative of Maharani Chandratara Devi, who had inherited the Schedule ‘A’ property and other properties in terms of the Will, marked as Exhibit-4, dated 15.10.1985 of Maharani Chandratara Devi. By judgment dated 23.11.1996, the suit was decreed holding that the plaintiff had right, title and interest in the Schedule ‘ A’ property, as amended, and the plaintiff was entitled to khas possession of the Schedule ‘A’ property after evicting all the defendants and was entitled to remove all obstructions.
The plaintiff did not challenge the decree of the trial court dismissing her suit in respect of the Schedule ‘ B ’ property. The plaint and the claim made by Smriti Debbarma, who had deposed as PW-1, is predicated on the Deed of Patta, marked as Exhibit-12, executed by Maharaja Durjoy Kishore Debbarma, son of Maharaja Birendra Kishore Debbarma in favour of Bidurkarta on 31.10.1951. Hotel Khosh Mahal Limited was established after taking the land and building of Schedule ‘ A ’ property, which was given on lease by Maharani Chandratara Devi. Hotel Khosh Mahal Limited was in possession of the Schedule ‘A’ property. Maharani Chandratara Devi had appointed Bidurkarta as her attorney vide registered power of attorney executed by her on 29.10.1969 because of her ill-health, old age and religious mentality, and as she used to primarily reside at Varanasi, Haridwar and/or Dehradun. Thereafter, the plaintiff through her workmen and agents had taken possession of the Schedule ‘A’ property and started a guest house under the name and style of ‘ M/s. The plaintiff had initiated proceedings under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, in the court of Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Agartala vide Miscellaneous No 75/86, whereby the defendants were restrained from disturbing possession of the plaintiff.
Hotel Khosh Mahal Limited, had leased out the business/property to Maharani Chandratara Devi. The fact that from 1968 onwards rent was paid by M/s Indian Airlines Corporation Limited to defendant no. Hotel Khosh Mahal Limited is different and distinct from the land, which is the subject matter of the Deed of Patta (Exhibit-12), and which as per the Ekrarnama (Exhibit-5) is owned by Maharani Chandratara Devi. 8 had filed a separate written statement and had accepted that he had acquired the land vide registered sale deed dated 17.07.1985, (Exhibit-E), from the Managing Director of M/s.
They had acquired the right, title and interest over the portions of the Schedule ‘A’ property on the strength of the purchased/sale deed executed by the Managing Director of M/s. Defendant no.11 in his additional written statement had claimed that he was not in possession or owner by way of purchase of any land included in Schedule ‘A’ of the plaint, or the schedule mentioned in the Will (Exhibit-4). First, the Deed of Patta ( Exhibit-12 ) dated 31.10.1951 and the Ekrarnama (Exhibit-5) dated 25.06.1952, demarcate and refer to the property as under: “ Deed of Patta xx xx xx
(Schedule boundaries)
Land measuring one kani five ganda two kara two kranta ten dhur with tashkishi taluki title included in Touji No 178 in my name having an annual revenue of Rs. 3, situated within Nutan Haveli Town, Pg, Agartala Bounded on the north by Mogra Road West South on the/and/by khas ‘pati’ on the east by the passage for going to Maharajganj bazar Within this boundary lies 246 X 90 ft land measuring one kani five ganda two kara two kranta ten dhur, appertaining to the portion marked (gha) of Dag no. 13142, 13143, 13144, 13145, 26261 stands for 2 Kanies 8 ganda 3 karas 8 12 dhurs only whereas the area of the land in the said “Ekrarnama” was mentioned as 1 Kani 5 Gandas 2 Karas 2 Krantas only.
West:- Adjacent North side land of Kumar Mahendra Mohan Deb Barma. There is the similarity of the North & East boundary of the identified Suitland and/land described in the Exhibit “A” of the Deffd t. Plot No 3412 (P) described in the “Ekrarnama” exhibit No.5 or then C.S. In absence of such Certified copy of the maps and difference in described boundaries of land in “Ekrarnama” created in the year 1952 it is not possible to point out that the identified land by the plaintiff is the land covered by “Ekrarnama” i.e. Hotel Khush Mahal Limited is as under: “ PATTA (Executed on 11-10-1358 T.E.) (= 1948 A.D.)
xx xx xx This deed of PATTA of Taksishi Taluk within the territory of independent Tripura, under Sadar Sub Registry and Police-Station appertaining to Agartala Nutan Haveli town, land measuring 3 Kani 8 Gandas 3 Karas 16 12 Dhurs, measured in 8 Cubit length ‘Nal’ (Chain) = 12 x 10 (‘Nal’) is executed in favour of HOTEL KHOSH MAHAL LIMITED on a Lease for 20 (Twenty) years from 1349 T.E. Consequent to this amendment, the figures now recorded in Schedule ‘ A ’ corresponded with the measurements mentioned in the Deed of Patta (Exhibit-A), which patta was executed in 1948 in favour of M/s.
the Deed of Patta (Exhibit-A), is earlier in point of time, whereas the Deed of Patta (Exhibit-12) and Ekrarnama (Exhibit-5) were executed later on.
Indian Airlines Corporation, Agartala Office, Land recorded in the name of late Bikramendra Kishore Deb Barma as Benamdar of Maharani Chandratara Debi (Principal).” No doubt, Schedule ‘B’ in the power of attorney statedly executed by Maharani Chandratara Devi refers to ‘ Khosh Mahal ’ but the area in the measurement given is vastly different. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant-plaintiff had submitted that the Deed of Patta (Exhibit-A) is a fabricated document. Counsel for the appellant-plaintiff has also drawn our attention to the letter marked as Exhibit-C dated 11.04.1968 purportedly sent by Maharaja Durjoy Kishore Debbarma as an attorney of Maharani Chandratara Devi. Indian Airlines Corporation Limited till 1968 was paid to Maharani Chandratara Devi. Hotel Khosh Mahal Limited to Maharani Chandratara Devi, which lease was extended till 1968.
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/case-type/criminal/conviction-upheld-for-murder-and-concealment-of-body/
Hotel Khosh Mahal Limited was established by the management after taking the land and building of Schedule ‘A’ property on lease from Maharani Chandratara Devi, virtually accepting that M/s. Hotel Khosh Mahal Limited was established in 1941, and in 1951 Chandratara Devi had acquired lease hold right in the Schedule ‘A’ property from Maharaja Durjoy Kishore Debbarma vide Deed of Patta (Exhibit- 12). Hotel Khosh Mahal Limited was in possession of Schedule ‘A’ property, though the nature and right to possession is disputed. The plaintiff ’s claim that thereupon she had taken possession of Schedule ‘A’ property through her workmen and agents and star ted a guest house in the name and style of ‘M/s. In this factual background, we would accept the claim of the defendants that on the date of filing of the suit the plaintiff was not in constructive or actual physical possession of the Schedule ‘A’ property.
The defendants, being in possession, would be entitled to protect and save their possession, unless the person who seeks to dispossess them has a better legal right in the form of ownership or entitlement to possession. In the absence of such evidence, the burden of proof lies on the plaintiff and can be discharged only when he is able to prove title.
Case Title: SMT. SMRITI DEBBARMA (D) THR LR. Vs. SRI PRABHA RANJAN DEBBARMA (2023 INSC 8)
Case Number: C.A. No.-000878-000878 / 2009
