LI Network
Published on: October 14, 2023 at 11:41 IST
The Tripura High Court’s Agartala Bench, reaffirmed that any determination made by a quasi-judicial body, such as an Executive Magistrate, concerning the title and possession of a party, will not be binding on a Civil Court.
The court rejected an appeal challenging the Judgment and decree of both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court. These courts had instructed the Appellants to surrender possession of a disputed piece of land to the Respondents.
Justice Arindam Lodh underscored, “The answer perhaps is in negative. The object of Section 145 of CrPC is to prevent breach of peace as regards the disputes arising out of a land or water.
The proceeding under Section 145 CrPC will not decide the title of a person over a land or water. Any finding arrived at by a quasi-judicial authority like the Executive Magistrate as regards the title and possession of a party will not be binding upon a Civil Court. Rather, the findings and decision of the Civil Court has the binding effect over right, title and interest as well as the possession of a party over a suit land.”
The case revolved around the disputed land, which the Plaintiff’s father owned. After his demise, the Plaintiff and his mother applied for the mutation of the land in their names, resulting in a joint record of rights.
However, the Plaintiff later discovered that the Defendants had encroached on the land, denied his rights, and constructed a mud hut. This led the Plaintiff to seek a declaration of his title and recovery of possession through the Court, a plea that was granted.
The Appellants (Defendants in the original suit) filed a second appeal under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC), challenging the Judgment and Decree passed by the Trial Court, which was upheld by the First Appellate Court.
The central issue addressed by the Court was whether an order passed in a Section 145 CrPC proceeding would have a binding effect on a civil suit in a Civil Court.
The Court reiterated that Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) aims to prevent disturbances of the peace arising from land or water disputes but does not determine a person’s title to land or water.
The findings made by quasi-judicial authorities, like the Executive Magistrate, regarding a party’s title and possession, do not bind a Civil Court. The Civil Court possesses ultimate authority over a party’s right, title, interest, and possession concerning disputed land.
Additionally, the Court emphasized that a suit based on title, under Article 64 of the Limitation Act, must be initiated within 12 years from the date of dispossession. Given that the suit was initiated in 2014, it was within the limitation period, even though the cause of action arose five years earlier.
The Court, while referring to a Supreme Court Judgment in the case of Shakti Bhog Food Industries Limited v Central Bank of India & Anr. (2020), held that the suit was filed with a definite cause of action.
The Court also observed discrepancies between the title deeds executed in favor of the Appellants and the plot numbers mentioned in the plaint schedule.
The Court reaffirmed that the boundary of the land takes precedence over the plot and khatian numbers, in line with established legal principles.
The Court concluded that the Appellants did not exert sufficient effort to identify the exact land they intended to claim, and therefore, there was no need for judicial intervention. Consequently, the Court dismissed the Appeal and upheld the impugned order.
Case Title: Nakul Chandra Das v Sri Chanmohan Saha
