9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the exchange of raiyati lands under Section 27(1) of the Sonthal Parganas Settlement Regulation, 3 of 1872. 2. Legal necessity and benefit of the estate concerning the sale deed and deed of exchange. 3. Adverse possession claim by the respondents. 4. Applicability of Section 11 of the Regulation to bar the appellants' suit. Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the Exchange of Raiyati Lands Under Section 27(1): The central issue was whether the exchange of raiyati lands situated in Sonthal Parganas was invalid under Section 27(1) of the Sonthal Parganas Settlement Regulation, 3 of 1872. The lands in question were raiyati and governed by the Regulation. The High Court initially dismissed the contention based on Section 27, stating it was raised for the first time during arguments. However, the Supreme Court found that the District Court had already considered this issue, thus the High Court was incorrect in disallowing the contention. Section 27(1) explicitly prohibits any transfer of a raiyat's holding unless the right to transfer is recorded in the Record of Rights. Sub-section (2) further enjoins courts from recognizing any such transfer. The Supreme Court held that the language of Section 27 is clear and comprehensive enough to include transfers by exchange. Consequently, the exchange of Schedule B properties was invalid as it was not recorded in the Record of Rights. 2. Legal Necessity and Benefit of the Estate: The appellants contended that the sale deed and the deed of exchange executed by Nilmoni Dasi were neither for legal necessity nor for the benefit of the estate of Tonu Mandal. The trial court and the District Court found that these transactions were not for legal necessity or for the estate's benefit. The High Court, however, held that the exchange was for the benefit of the estate, even if not for legal necessity. The Supreme Court upheld the lower courts' findings, emphasizing that the transactions were neither for legal necessity nor for the estate's benefit. 3. Adverse Possession Claim: The respondents claimed that their long possession of the properties had ripened into title by adverse possession. Both the trial court and the District Court rejected this plea, applying Article 141 of the Limitation Act, 1908, which allows reversioners to file a suit for possession within twelve years after the widow's death. The Supreme Court agreed, stating that the reversioners' right to recover possession is not barred by the widow's negligence or sufferance. The High Court's disallowance of the adverse possession claim was thus upheld. 4. Applicability of Section 11 of the Regulation: The respondents argued that under Section 11 of the Regulation, the appellants' suit was not maintainable as the validity of the exchange could not be agitated in court once decided by a settlement officer. The Supreme Court found that neither Section 11 nor Section 25A applied to this case, as the issue of the exchange's validity was not decided by any settlement officer or court. Therefore, the bar under Section 11 did not apply, and the appellants' suit was maintainable. Conclusion: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's judgment and restoring the trial court's decree, which was confirmed by the District Court. The exchange of Schedule B properties was declared invalid under Section 27(1) of the Regulation, and the appellants were entitled to possession of these properties. The respondents were ordered to pay the costs of the appeal and those incurred in the High Court.
|
