Bail | Right to Speedy Trial is a Fundamental Right Under Article 21: PH High Court    |     Postal Department’s Power to Enhance Penalties Time-Barred, Rules Allahabad High Court    |     Tenants Cannot Cross-Examine Landlords Unless Relationship is Disputed: Madras High Court    |     NDPS | Conscious Possession Extends to Vehicle Drivers: Telangana High Court Upholds 10-Year Sentence in Ganja Trafficking Case    |     Aid Reduction Of Without Due Process Unlawful: Rajasthan High Court Restores Full Grants for Educational Institutions    |     Assessment of Notional Income in Absence of Proof Cannot Be 'Mathematically Precise,' Says Patna High Court    |     NCLT's Resolution Plan Overrides State Tax Claims: Andhra Pradesh High Court Quashes Demands Against Patanjali Foods    |     An Agreement is Not Voidable if the Party Could Discover the Truth with Ordinary Diligence: Calcutta High Court Quashes Termination of LPG Distributorship License    |     Independent Witnesses Contradict Prosecution's Story: Chhattisgarh High Court Acquit Accused in Arson Case    |     Merely Being a Joint Account Holder Does Not Attract Liability Under Section 138 of NI Act:  Gujarat High Court    |     Higher Court Cannot Reappreciate Evidence Unless Perversity is Found: Himachal Pradesh High Court Refused to Enhance Maintenance    |     Perpetual Lease Allows Division of Property: Delhi High Court Affirms Partition and Validity of Purdah Wall    |     "Party Autonomy is the Backbone of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Upholds Sole Arbitrator Appointment Despite Party’s Attempts to Frustrate Arbitration Proceedings    |     Videography in Temple Premises Limited to Religious Functions: Kerala High Court Orders to Restrict Non-Religious Activities on Temple Premises    |     Past Service Must Be Counted for Pension Benefits: Jharkhand High Court Affirms Pension Rights for Daily Wage Employees    |     'Beyond Reasonable Doubt’ Does Not Mean Beyond All Doubt: Madras High Court Upholds Life Imprisonment for Man Convicted of Murdering Mother-in-Law    |    

‘Title Must Precede Possession’: Calcutta High Court Orders Retrial in Family Land Dispute

11 September 2024 6:40 PM

By: Deepak Kumar


“Since the said property is a vacant site, the issue of title would directly and substantially arise for consideration inasmuch as without the finding thereon it will not be possible to decide the issue of possession.” – Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul), Calcutta High Court.

The case involves a long-standing family dispute over a piece of land in Dhubulia, Nadia, between two brothers, Hekmat Biswas and Alibuddin Biswas. The central issue is whether a deed of gift executed by their grandmother, Ubbani Bibi, in 1967, transferring ownership of the property to the plaintiff (Alibuddin), was valid. After lower courts delivered conflicting rulings, the case reached the Calcutta High Court, where the core legal question centered on whether the plaintiff's right to a permanent injunction could be upheld without a declaration of title.

The primary legal question was whether the suit for a permanent injunction could proceed without resolving the question of ownership of the land. The defendant challenged the plaintiff's title, claiming that their grandmother, Ubbani Bibi, only inherited a small share of the property and could not legally transfer full ownership.

Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul) noted that the property in dispute is a vacant site, and in such cases, title and possession are deeply intertwined. The court ruled that before determining possession, it was crucial to settle the question of who legally owns the land. The judgment pointed out that the Appellate Court had failed to consider the complexity of the title dispute and erred in decreeing the case based on mere possession without examining the plaintiff's claim to ownership.

The High Court referenced key precedents, notably the Supreme Court ruling in Anathula Sudhakar vs P. Buchi Reddy, which clarifies that in cases involving disputed title, the plaintiff must seek a declaration of title alongside any injunction request. This ruling emphasizes that where the defendant challenges the plaintiff’s title, the court must first resolve ownership before issuing an injunction.

The High Court has ordered a retrial, directing the lower court to address the complex title dispute through a comprehensive suit for the declaration of ownership. The court stressed that the plaintiff must amend his suit to seek a declaration of title, after which the issue of possession and the right to an injunction could be properly adjudicated. The decision highlights the importance of resolving title disputes before issuing injunctions, especially in cases involving vacant land, and sets a precedent for how such disputes should be handled in future cases.

Date of Decision: September 10, 2024

Hekmat Biswas & Anr. vs Alibuddin Biswas

Similar News