'Jamabandi Entry' Alone Doesn't Create Ownership Rights In Property Without Supporting Title Deed: Gauhati High Court Reiterates
The Gauhati High Court has reiterated that a mere entry in jamabandi or chitha, unsupported by a title deed, does not confer any right, title or interest over land.Justice Kalyan Rai Surana observed, “... though entries in the jamabandi would have some relevance under Regulation 40 of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886. However, when the plaintiffs claim a legal right to the land,...
The Gauhati High Court has reiterated that a mere entry in jamabandi or chitha, unsupported by a title deed, does not confer any right, title or interest over land.
Justice Kalyan Rai Surana observed, “... though entries in the jamabandi would have some relevance under Regulation 40 of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886. However, when the plaintiffs claim a legal right to the land, a mere entry of a name of jamabandi or a chitha, not supported by any title deed, would not confer any right whatsoever over the suit land.”
The dispute arose out of a suit filed by the plaintiffs claiming declaration of their right, title and interest over the suit land and partition thereof. Their case was that the land had been purchased by Sultan Seikh and Multan Seikh and that their respective shares had already been partitioned through earlier arrangements. They alleged that after a fire in 2002 destroyed structures standing on the land, the defendants occupied portions beyond their entitlement, leading to the institution of the suit.
The trial court dismissed the suit and the first appellate court affirmed the dismissal. Aggrieved, plaintiffs approached the High Court in a second appeal.
Before the High Court, the appellants submitted that the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate court was not sustainable as no points of determination, as required under Order XLI Rule 31 CPC, were framed. It was also submitted that the first appellate court had not discussed all the witnesses examined by both sides and did not refer to all the exhibited documents.
On examination of the records, the High Court noted that the pleaded case in the plaint was that Sultan Seikh and Multan Seikh were in joint possession of the land suit after purchasing the same from one Siva Nath Sarma; however, the sale deed through which the land was allegedly purchased was never exhibited.
The Court further found that there was no pleading or evidence showing how Badal Hussain, through whom the appellants claimed title, had derived any right, title or interest over the suit land.
The Court observed, “Therefore, under the unique facts of this case, the Court does not find any error in the judgment and consequential decree of dismissal of the suit, passed by the learned Trial Court, which has been affirmed by the learned First Appellate Court.”
The High Court also examined the plaintiffs' reliance on an alleged partition reflected in a rough sketch map from 1993 and held, “The so-called partition on 21.03.1993, vide signatures of some persons on a rough map drawn by the parties, cannot be said to be a document which creates a valid title of those persons over a plot of land as the appellants (plaintiff nos. 3 to 8) claim through one Badal Hussain and Multan Seikh, in respect of whom, there is no pleadings as to how they derived title.”
The Court ultimately held that the plaintiffs had failed to prove any right, title or interest over the suit land and found no perversity in the concurrent findings recorded by the courts below.
“Thus, under the facts unique to this case, the Court does not find that the concurrent finding of both the learned Courts below is vitiated by non-application of mind,” the Court concluded.
Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.
Case Name: On the Death of Md. Murad Iman, His Legal Heirs & Ors. v. On the Death of Md. Suleman Sheikh, His Legal Heirs & Ors.
Case Number: RSA/23/2009