Seniority Must Be Calculated From the Date of Initial Appointment, Not Regularization: Madras High Court Rules Section 319 Cr.P.C. | Mere Association Not Enough for Criminal Liability: Karnataka HC Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds ₹25,000 Per Kanal Compensation for Land Acquired for Nangal-Talwara Railway Line, Dismisses Railway’s Appeal No Work No Pay Principle Not Applicable: Orissa High Court Orders Reinstatement and Full Back Wages for Wrongfully Terminated Lecturer No Assault, No Obstruction, Only Words Exchanged: Bombay High Court Quashes Charges of Obstruction Against Advocates Under Section 353 IPC Matrimonial Offences Can Be Quashed Even if Non-Compoundable, When Genuine Compromise Is Reached: J&K HC Plaintiff Entitled to Partition, But Must Contribute Redemption Share to Defendant: Delhi High Court Clarifies Subrogation Rights in Mortgage Redemption Labeling Someone A 'Rowdy' Without Convictions Infringes Personal Liberty And Reputation: Kerala High Court P&H High Court Denies Pensionary Benefits for Work-Charged Employee's Widow; Declares Work-Charged Service Not Eligible for ACP or Pension Benefits Acquittal is Acquittal: Rajasthan High Court Orders Appointment of Candidate Denied Job Over Past FIR At The Bail Stage, Culpability Is Not To Be Decided; Allegations Must Be Tested During Trial: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in SCST Supreme Court Dismisses Challenge to "Secular" and "Socialist" Additions in Constitution Preamble Supreme Court Rejects Res Judicata in Land Allotment Case: Fresh Cause of Action Validates Public Interest Litigation Public Resources Are Not Privileges for the Few: Supreme Court Declares Preferential Land Allotments to Elites Unconstitutional Past antecedents alone cannot justify denial of bail: Kerala High Court Grants Bail Revenue Records Alone Cannot Prove Ownership: Madras High Court Dismisses Temple's Appeal for Injunction Humanitarian Grounds Cannot Undermine Investigation: Himachal Pradesh High Court Grants Interim Bail in ₹200 Crore Scholarship Scam The Power Under Order XXXVIII, Rule 5 CPC is Drastic and Extraordinary; Should Not Be Exercised Mechanically or Merely for the Asking: Calcutta High Court

‘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