Party Claiming Compensation For Illegal Acquisition Of Property Bound To Establish Its Title: Kerala High Court
The Kerala High Court has recently ruled that a party claiming compensation for illegal acquisition of some property allegedly possessed by him has to establish his title and possession over the same before the court.While allowing an appeal, Justice Mary Joseph observed that in the said case, the plaintiff who sought compensation had failed to produce the document to evidence his ownership...
The Kerala High Court has recently ruled that a party claiming compensation for illegal acquisition of some property allegedly possessed by him has to establish his title and possession over the same before the court.
While allowing an appeal, Justice Mary Joseph observed that in the said case, the plaintiff who sought compensation had failed to produce the document to evidence his ownership over the land.
"The reliefs sought in the plaint were declaration of title, recovery of possession of the plaint schedule property and compensation for illegal acquisition of the same by the defendant. The party claiming compensation for illegal acquisition of some property allegedly owned and possessed by him is bound to establish firstly his title and possession over the property allegedly acquired from him."
While the original plaintiff was holding ownership and possession of the plaint schedule property, the construction of a road through plaint schedule property was proposed by the defendant. According to the plaintiff, he had consented to the acquisition of plaint schedule property for a public purpose subject to due observance of the procedures contemplated under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act.
However, it is his case that the State proceeded to acquire the land and constructed a public road through the plaint schedule property, without recourse to procedural formalities contemplated under the Act. According to him, notice was not served on him and not even a declaration was issued by the respondent in the matter.
Therefore, alleging that the acquisition of the plaint schedule property was utterly tainted with illegality, he approached the trial court. During the pendency of the trial, he passed away, so his daughter was impleaded as an additional plaintiff along with other members of his family.
However, the trial court dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by this, the appellant (his daughter) moved the High Court.
Advocates V. Suresh and G. Sudheer appearing for the appellant argued that the dismissal was due to an incorrect appreciation of the evidence by the trial court.
According to them, the trial court failed to frame an issue on the title of the original plaintiff over the plaint schedule property and therefore, the partition deed through which the original plaintiff obtained title was not produced.
Advocates J.R Prem Navaz and P.T Sheejish appeared for the respondents 2-4, supporting the claim of the appellant.
Senior Government Pleader Noble Mathew argued that though the original plaintiff claimed title over the plaint schedule property under a partition deed, the same was not produced and marked in evidence during trial in the suit.
The Court noted that, as pointed out by the State, the title to the plaint schedule property though claimed to have been obtained under a partition deed, was not produced and marked in evidence.
Instead, the plaintiff had produced a Pattayam obtained on 26.03.1982 by their predecessor in interest. A cogent reason was not forthcoming from any of the witnesses examined by the plaintiffs for the non-production of the original partition deed either.
Only a photocopy of the pattayam was produced and marked in evidence, which being inadmissible in evidence was rightly discarded by the trial court. The original plaintiff has also not raised a claim in the plaint that title to the plaint schedule property was obtained through this pattayam.
When the reliefs sought in the plaint were declaration of title, recovery of possession of the plaint schedule property and compensation for illegal acquisition, the plaintiff ought to have established his title and possession over the property allegedly acquired from him.
In the case on hand, title to the plaint schedule property was alleged as obtained by the original plaintiff on the strength of a partition deed, but it was not produced and marked in evidence. The document produced and marked in evidence had no relevance at all since the claim for title was not based on it.
Meanwhile, the appellant had submitted an application to let her submit the deed as additional evidence, and since this document was much relevant for the court to have a proper adjudication of the issues, the application was allowed.
Therefore, the impugned judgment of the trial court was set aside and the trial court was asked to conduct the trial afresh after granting a reasonable opportunity to both sides to adduce evidence with reference to the pleadings already taken by them respectively in the plaint and in the written statement.
The trial court was to receive the partition deed and consent letter, if produced by the parties before it and mark those in evidence. As such, the appeal was allowed.
Case Title: Shajeedha Beevi v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 201