M.T.W. TENZING NAMGYAL AND ORS. versus MOTILAL LAKHOTIA AND ORS.

Citation: [2003] 1 S.C.R. 877 · Decided: 05-02-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.N. KHARE · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

M.T.W. TENZING NAMGYAL AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
MOTILAL LAKHOTIA AND ORS. 
FEBRUARY 5, 2003 
[V.N. KHARE CJ, S.B. SINHA AND DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN, JJ.] 
B 
land laws: 
Plaintiffe claiming title over suit land through their predecessor-in-
interest-Case based on title and not possession-Allegation that property C 
acquired by Sikkim Government and consequently by Government of India--
Trial Court allowing the suit-High Court setting aside the same-Justification 
of-Held, since plaintiffe failed to prove that land belonged to them and 
records of right are not basis of determination of title as they are mainly 
based on possession, order of High Court justified-Constitution of India, D 
Article 371 F. 
Plaintifrs predecessor-in-interest owned certain plots of land forming 
part of his private estate which upon his death devolved on the plaintiff 
and on his death upon the appellants. Respondent-defendant encroached 
upon the land belonging to the plaintiff. Plaintiff filed suit for recovery of E 
possession of the encroached land and permanent injunction. District 
Judge dismissed the suit. High Court set aside the judgment and remitted 
back the matter. District Judge then allowed the suit. However, High Court 
set aside the order. Hence the present appeal. 
Appellants contended that the High Court erred in holding that F 
entries made in Khasra appearing in the name of plaintifrs predecessor-
in-interest did not belong to his private estate; and that plot No.1040 being 
situated within the bazar area was acquired for a sum of Rs. 1,50,000 and 
also that 'private estate' had not been mentioned against the plot Nos.1013 
and 1040 in the Exhibit, the same had vested in the State of Sikkim. It 
was further contended that as there had been no transfer of title from the- G 
plaintiffs to the private estate in any manner whatsoever, the Government 
of Sikkim did not derive any title thereto; and that the purported 
acquisition of the suit land said to have been proved by the Exhibits does 
not show that there had been any transfer of property which was 
applicable to the State of Sikkim and in absence thereof the ownership of H 
877 
878 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2003) I S.C.R. · 
A the plaintiffs in respect of plot Nos.1013 and 1040 continued with the 
plaintiffs. 
Respondent No. 1 contended that the defendants have constructed the 
hotel building in accordance with the sanction accorded by the competent 
authorities; that most of the documents, on which reliance had been placed 
B by the High Court were produced by the plaintiffs and/or received from 
the custody of their witnesses; and that having regard to the facts and 
circumstances of the case no presumption can be raised as regards the 
correctness of the entries made in the- Khasra. 
C 
Respondent No.2 contended that the plaintiffs have not been able to 
prove their title over plot No. 1040. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: I. I. The plaintifrs _predecessor-in-interest was late Chogyal 
D of Sikkim. Therefore, there is no question of plaintifrs having any 
documents of title. The only document of title which was produced by the 
plaintiffs in support of their claim is the Khasra in which entries against 
different plots, inter alia, have been made in the name of 'Sarkar' as also 
in the name of plaintifrs predecessor-in-interest. Certain plots have also 
been recorded as 'Private Estate'. High Court recorded a finding to the 
E effect that all lands which were entered in the Khasra in the name of 
plaintifrs predecessor in interest did not belong to his private estate. The 
finding may not be correct in view of the fact that admittedly his lands in 
suit were subject matter of acquisition. Therefore, this Court assumed that 
the said finding of High Court is incorrect. (883-G, H; 884-E, F) 
F 
1.2. State of Sikkim merged with the Union of India in terms of an 
agreement on 26.4.1975. After merger the proposal to construct a hotel 
started. The records of the case clearly demonstrate that for the purpose 
of construction of hotel the defendants not only sought for but also were 
granted additional lands. They took permission for construction of the 
G hotel from the appropriate authorities. (885-A, DI 
t.3. The plaintiffs claimed title over the suit land on the basis of their 
title thereupon and not on previous possession. Their case, thus, must stand 
or fall on their own pleadings. The plaintiffs proceeded on the basis that~ 
they were owners of a part of plot No. I 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.