AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The present second appeal has been preferred against a judgment of affirmance, whereby both the courts below dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiffs/appellants for declaration of their title and possession and for consequential reliefs.
Learned counsel for the appellants argues that in the CS, RS and LR records of rights, the plaintiffs/appellants’ names were consistently recorded.
However, there is a rider in the LR records of rights entry, indicating that the subject property is for “common use of the public”.
Learned counsel submits that in view of the presumption created by the entries in the CS and RS records of rights, the courts below ought to have held at least that the plaintiffs/appellants are in possession of the suit property.
Learned counsel cites a judgment of a learned Single Judge of this court in the matter of Biswanath Chongdar and others vs. Sudha Ghosh and others, reported at 2019 Supreme (Cal) 280, where the learned Single Judge observed that if the factual position remains unaltered that possession in the possessory column was recorded in favour of the plaintiffs in the C.S. ROR and R.S. ROR, it is sufficiently indicative that at some point of time the plaintiffs’ predecessors had possession over the suit property way back in 1925-26, when the C.S. ROR were prepared, and following such noting R.S. ROR was also prepared, which at least shows the undisturbed, effective and settled possession of the plaintiffs in respect of the suit property for a long time, if not ripened into a title, but there is no justification to disturb such possession as on date.
However, from the said proposition itself, it is evident that even long possession on the strength of entries in the records of rights cannot acquire the character of title.
It is quite well-settled that entries in the records of rights do not confer or take away title in respect of the subject property.
As per the frame of the suit, possession followed title. In the absence of any title deed being produced by the appellants in either of the courts below, the consequential relief of declaration of possession could not also have been granted.
More importantly, from the last document of possession, that is, the L.R. records of rights furnished by the plaintiffs/appellants themselves, it is evident that the suit property has been recorded to be for the use of the common public.
If that be so, the courts below could not have granted a declaration of exclusive possession of the plaintiffs/appellants in respect of the subject property.
Thus, we do not find any illegality or error of law and/or fact in the concurrent findings of the courts below.
Moreover, the facts and circumstances of the cited decision were completely different from present case, inasmuch as the recording of the names of the plaintiffs/appellants in the L.R. records of rights produced by themselves clearly indicate that the plaintiffs/appellants are not in exclusive possession but their possession is qualified by the right of the common public to use the subject property, thus disentitling the plaintiffs/appellants from the declarations as sought for.
Accordingly, S.A. 58 of 2026 is dismissed under Order XLI Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
CAN 1 of 2026 is consequentially dismissed as well.
There will be no order as to costs.
Urgent photostat copies of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance of all requisite formalities.