Ratan Mahato vs Bhabi Singh Sardar and another.

Jyotirmay Bhattacharya, J. - This second appeal is directed against the judgement and decree dated 29th March, 2014 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Additional Court, Purulia in Title Appeal No. 38 of 2013 by reversing the judgement and decree dated 26th July, 2012 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Purulia in Title Suit No. 362 of 2004 at the instance of the plaintiff/appellant.

Let us now consider the merit of the appeal to find out as to whether any substantial question of law is involved in this appeal for which the appeal is required to be admitted for hearing under the provision of Order 41, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure or not.

The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of his title and for injunction. He claimed that Moti Mura was the owner of the suit property. Pursuant to an oral agreement made between the plaintiff and Moti Mura, the plaintiff paid a sum of Rs. 500/- being the consideration money for sale of the suit property in his favour by Moti Mura. On acceptance of such consideration money, possession of the suit property was delivered to the plaintiff by Moti Mura who ultimately could not execute any deed of transfer as he subsequently became ill.

After the death of Moti Mura, his widow viz., Fulu Murani executed two deeds of relinquishment viz., one on 23rd February, 1974 and another on 30th May, 1975 by relinquishing her right, title and interest in favour of the plaintiff and confirmed the sale of the suit property by her husband in favour of the plaintiff. Thus, by virtue of the aforesaid two deeds of relinquishment, the plaintiff claimed title in the suit property and he has also prayed for restraining the defendants from disturbing his possession in the suit property.

The defendants contested the said suit by filing written statement denying the allegations made out by the plaintiff in the said suit. The transfer made by Fulu Murani has been challenged by the defendants since such transfer violates the provision contained in Section 14C of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 inasmuch as such transfer was alleged to have been made by a tribal in favour of a non-tribal.

Learned Trial Judge after considering the pleadings of the parties and evidence on record was pleased to decree the suit on contest by holding that the plaintiff acquired title in the suit property by virtue of those deeds of relinquishment and such transfer is not hit by the provision of Section 14C of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955.

Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said decision of the learned Trial Judge, the defendant/respondent preferred an appeal before the learned first appellate court. The learned first appellate court was pleased to allow the said appeal by reversing the judgement and decree of the learned Trial Court. The learned first appellate court held that by virtue of two deeds of relinquishment, title cannot be transferred in favour of the transferee. The learned first appellate court thus held that since no title was validly transferred in favour of the plaintiff by virtue of those two deeds of relinquishment, the first appellate court need not consider as to whether such transfer was in violation of the provision of Section 14C of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955.

The legality and/or validity of the said judgement and decree of the learned first appellate court is under challenge in this second appeal at the instance of the plaintiff.

Mr. Adhikari, learned advocate appearing for the appellant submits before us that the effect of the transfer cannot be decided by looking at the nomenclature of the deeds itself. He contends that though the deeds were described as deeds of relinquishment, but, in fact, the deeds show that the right, title and interest of the recorded owner was, in fact, transferred in favour of the plaintiff on acceptance of consideration of Rs. 500/- being the sale price. By relying upon a decision of this Hon''ble Court in the case of Satyesh Chandra Banerjee v. Sm. Rani Banerjee and others reported in AIR 1977 Cal. 509, he submits before us that where the operative part of the deed is unambiguous and it shows that the right, title and interest of the executant, in fact, was transferred in favour of the release, the learned first appellate court ought not to have held that no title in favour of the release was transferred by virtue of the said deeds of relinquishment.

Though we find no hesitation in accepting such submission of Mr. Adhikari that the effectiveness and/or operation of a deed cannot be decided merely by looking at the title and/or nomenclature of the deed and the effectiveness of such deed should be considered by looking at the intention of the parties for execution of such deed reflected in the deed itself and ultimately if it is found that the releaser, in fact, transferred his/her right, title and interest in the suit property on acceptance of consideration money and the deed was registered as per the provision of the Registration Act, then it should be held that right, title and interest of the transferor was validly transferred in favour of the transferee notwithstanding the fact that the deed was described as deed of relinquishment or not.

However, we cannot stop here as admittedly we find that here is the case where the right, title and interest in a land belonging to a member of scheduled tribe community was transferred to a non-tribal without any permission from the Revenue Officer in terms of the provision contained in Section 14C of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955.

Such being the position, we hold that even if we consider the deeds of relinquishment as deeds of transfer and title of Moti Mura and/or Fulu Murani stood transferred in favour of the plaintiff by virtue of those deeds of relinquishment, still then since such transfer was made in violation of the provision contained in Section 14C of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955, we hold that the transferee/release viz. the plaintiff herein did not and/or could not acquire any title in the suit property by virtue of those deeds.

Accordingly, we do not find involvement of any substantial question of law in this appeal for which the appeal is required to be admitted. We thus decline to admit this appeal for hearing under the provision of Order 41, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

The appeal thus stands dismissed.

Re� CAN 9057 of 2014 (Stay)

Since we have not admitted the appeal under the provision of Order 41, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, no further order need be passed on the interim application for stay. The said application being CAN 9057 of 2014 is thus deemed to be disposed of.