Arunima Singha And Ors vs Birendra Singha

S. Talapatra, J

[1] Heard Mr. S. M. Chakraborty, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. P. Sen, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff-appellants. Also heard Mr. K. N. Bhattacharjee, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. S. Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

[2] The suit by the appellants herein, being Title Suit No. 02 of 2012 in the Court of the Ld. Civil Judge, Sr. Division, North Tripura, Dharmanagar was instituted for declaration and the consequential reliefs. According to the appellants, her father or husband, as the case may be, namely, Birendra Singha acquired right over the scheduled land by way of a valid gift as referred as of the suit land, pertaining to Khatian No. 3235 of C.S Plot Nos. 8007, 8008 and 8017 of Mouza-Dharmanagar measuring 1.011 acres out of the total land of 1.304 acres of Nal class belonging to the predecessor.

[3] According to the plaintiff-appellants, the defendant did not acquire any right on the suit property which purportedly devolved he claimed to have by virtue of the gift deed No. 1-2996 dated 18.05.1977 inasmuch as, the gift property was not accepted by the defendant at any relevant point. Hence, it has been contended by the appellants that the defendant did not acquire any title or interest over the suit property as dismissed in the said deed dated 18.05.1977.

[4] The plaintiff-appellants have claimed that the said property still remain in the name of late Dhan Singha, grandfather of the plaintiff-appellants. It has been further contended that the defendant in the suit namely, Birendra Singha did not have any competence (see Section-5 of the Transfer of Properties Act) to execute the gift deed No. 1-1191 dated 30.06.2010 in favour of ISCKON, as claimed.

[5] The plaintiff No. 1, the daughter of the defendant married to Biswajit Singha since the year 1997. Even the defendant tried to get divorce from the mother of the plaintiff No.1, i.e. the plaintiff No.2 but the said matrimonial suit was dismissed. Having the title qua that gift deed No. 1-1191 dated 30.06.2010, the defendant had gifted the land measuring 0.426 acre in favour of ISCKON. The said gift deed has been challenged in the suit. The said gift deed, according to the appellants, have issued by a person lacking incompetence to transfer. The ground that has been taken in the plaint for declaring the said gift deed as nullity or without authority is as follows: (i) the doner had no transferable right inasmuch as the doner had not accepted the gift made by the grandfather of the plaintiff-appellants. The trial court after examining the plaint and the written statement [the pleadings], has framed the issues which are as follows:

(I) Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form?

(II) Whether there is any cause of action for filing of the suit?

(III) Whether the suit is barred by limitation?

(IV) Whether the Defendant is suffering from any mental disorder?

(V) Has the plaintiffs right in the suit?

(VI) Are the plaintiff entitled to get decree of perpetual injunction against the defendant from selling/alienating the suit property?

(VII)Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to get the cost of the suit/any other reliefs?"

[6] All the issues, as framed, were decided against the plaintiffs holding that the plaintiff had no right or locus to institute the suit inasmuch as, both the pleas, taken by the plaintiffs viz. the gift deed was invalid and second, the defendant was suffering from unsoundness of her mind have been held to be not good by the plaintiff.

[7] As a result, the suit has been dismissed observing inter alia that:

"Thus, in the absence of any direct legal right or character to the suit property plaintiffs cannot maintain any suit seeking any declaratory relief relating to his property and as such plaintiffs could not create any cloud on the right, title and interest of defendant in the suit property. Besides, no point is raised by Ld. Counsel of defendant about bar of suit due to limitation. So it cannot be said that suit is barred by law of limitation. Therefore, in view of what has been discussed above and reasons cited I am of the considered opinion that the suit is maintainable and the plaintiffs are not entitled to get the relief of declaration and perpetual injunction as sought for in respect to the suit property or any other relief."

[8] The said finding in the judgment dated 26.03.2016 delivered in Title Suit No. 02 of 2012 has been challenged in this appeal filed under Section-96 of the CPC. On scrutiny of the grounds of objection as raised in this appeal, we are of the view that the only point which is required to be appreciated is that whether the defendant had the valid title over the property or not. We do not find any infirmity in the finding of the trial court inasmuch as, there is no evidence to show that the defendant was suffering from unsoundness of mind. Mere incorrect description insignificant otherwise, in a deed cannot turn a man to be held as the person suffering from unsoundness of mind. The second plea that has been stoutly raised in the appeal is that since the gift deed was not accepted by the donee, the said gift deed is invalid. Having due attention to that plea raised by the appellants, this Court is of the view that there is no dispute that the defendant was in possession of the suit land ever since he had stated to hold the title and as such, even if there was no formal acceptance of the deed of gift, by conduct the defendant has demonstrated that he had accepted that by enjoying the benefit of gift deed and remaining the possession of the land, the properties under the gift deed.

[9] Having observed thus, we do not find any merit in this appeal and accordingly, the same stands dismissed. Draw the decree accordingly and send down the LCRs thereafter.