Civil Courts Have Jurisdiction To Adjudicate Upon Title To Land Where Land Distribution Is Decided Via Partition: SC
The Supreme Court reiterated that, where the distribution of land has been decided by way of partition, Civil Courts have the jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the title to the land.
The Court reiterated thus in a Civil Appeal filed against the Judgment of the Gauhati High Court by which the Second Appeal was allowed, the First Appellate Court’s Judgment was set aside, and the Trial Court’s Judgment was restored.
The two-Judge Bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan observed, “The position of law on the issue has been explained by the High Court of Gauhati itself in the case of Thanda Bala Choudhury and Anr. v. Birendra Kumar Choudhury reported in 2002 SCC OnLine Gau 26 wherein the issue was regarding the jurisdiction of civil courts for declaration of right, title and interest over the suit property when the case for perfect partition had already been disposed of by the Deputy Commissioner.”
The Bench took note of the following two important points –
“a. First, in cases where the distribution of land has been decided by way of partition, civil courts have the jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the title to the land. This is in consonance with various rulings that conclude that Section 154 cannot deprive a man of his title to the land. The Court held that mere partition of property in dispute by the Revenue authorities does not confer any title on them and it is open to civil courts to determine the right of the parties to the property.
b. Secondly, civil courts cannot exercise jurisdiction over matters of perfect partition; only revenue courts are vested with the power to decide on the same. The legal position pursuant to Section 154 as well as Section 62 is that no bar exists over civil courts to declare the rights over a suit property. Additionally, Section 62 specifically vests a right upon parties to approach civil courts for declaration of right, title and interest over the suit property.”
Senior Advocate Parthiv K. Goswami represented the Appellant while AOR Mohna represented the Respondents.
Brief Facts -
As per the Appellant’s (Plaintiff) case, sometime in 1973, the Respondents (Defendants) acquired ownership of a land by inheritance and pursuantly, the Respondents respectively as joint owners took over the possession of their respective shares. The First Respondent vide two separate registered sale deeds sold his entire land to the Appellant and the possession was also handed over to him. However, soon thereafter, the Respondents tried to forcibly dispossess the Appellant from the property. Aggrieved by the forcible dispossession, the Appellant instituted a Title Suit for confirmation of his right, title, and interest and declaration of possession over the Suit land. The said Title Suit was decreed in Appellant’s favour and hence, the Respondents preferred an Appeal. The said Appeal was allowed and the matter was remanded back to the Trial Court for fresh consideration.
The Title Suit instituted by the Appellant was dismissed and hence, he preferred Title Appeal. The Appellate Court held that the Appellant was entitled to a decree for declaration of right, title, and interest, however, it held that as the Appellant could not be delivered possession of the Suit land, he would be at liberty to seek appropriate remedy, seeking partition of the Suit land. The Respondents approached the High Court but their Second Appeal was dismissed. The Appellant then instituted a Partition Case and the Additional Deputy Commissioner (ADC) declined to the same. Thereafter, he instituted Title Suit before the Civil Judge but the same was also dismissed. Subsequently, the Title Appeal was allowed by the Civil Judge and resultantly, the Respondents approached the High Court. The High Court allowed their Second Appeal and set aside the First Appellate Court’s Judgment. Therefore, the case was before the Apex Court.
The Supreme Court in view of the above facts, noted, “The plain reading of the provision referred to above would indicate that when anything in the CPC is in conflict with anything in the special or local law or with any special jurisdiction or power conferred or in the special form of procedure prescribed by or under any other law, the Code will not (in the absence of any specific provision to the contrary) prevail so as to override such inconsistent provisions. When there is no conflict between the special or local law and the Code, the Code will apply.”
The Court said that the Civil Courts have jurisdiction to try and decide Suits for partition or separate possession of share of estates assessed to payment of revenue to Government but have no power to execute decree passed in such suits. It further said that the decree that may be passed by the Civil Court would declare the rights of the several parties interested in the property, but the decree should direct the actual partition to be made by the Collector or any officer subordinate to him authorized on that behalf.
“… the jurisdiction conferred upon Revenue authority does not prevent the civil court from adjudicating upon the right to an asset when entitlement is claimed. … the bar created by Section 154(1) does not preclude suits based on title to the property from being within the jurisdiction of civil courts”, it also added.
Accordingly, the Apex Court allowed the Appeal, set aside the Judgment of the High Court, and restored the Civil Judge’s Order.
Cause Title- Abdul Rejak Laskar v. Mafizur Rahman & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 1023)
Appearance:
Appellant: Senior Advocate Parthiv K Goswami, AOR Kaushik Choudhury, Advocates Saksham Garg, Jyotirmoy Chatterjee, and Ashfaque Hassan.
Respondents: AOR Mohna, Advocates Mohna M Madan Lal, and Geetali Hazarika.
