Dismissed¶12

Abul Kasim and Ors. v. Sadgar Sk and Ors.

Calcutta HC5 Feb 2024SAT/48/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Record-of-right entries create no title and stand rebuttable presumption of correctness; on conflict, later R.S./L.R. entry prevails over earlier C.S. entry. SAT appellants relying solely on C.S. entry in name of Hossain Sarkar produced no title deed and lost in both lower Courts; respondents' deeds from Riajuddin Sarkar and Ekram Ali prevailed. No substantial question of law; appeal and CAN dismissed, no costs (Calcutta HC, 05.02.2024).

What did the court decide?

In construing depositions, the Court should not be swayed by a single word or sentence but must read the deposition in its entirety; segregation from the larger context is to be eschewed. ¶5

Abul Kasim and Ors. Vs Sadgar Sk and Ors. — Calcutta HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶12

Issue for consideration

Whether the entry made in the record of right creates any title in a person (stated by the court as the cardinal issue of the instant appeal) +1 more

¶5

Court's answer

An entry made in the record of right neither creates nor extinguishes the title of a person.

¶6

Ratio / Principle

In construing depositions, the Court should not be swayed by a single word or sentence but must read the deposition in its entirety; segregation from the larger context is to be eschewed.

¶5

Key takeaways

There is a presumption of correctness attaching to an entry in the record of right, unless rebutted by the other side.ratio¶6
Where there is a conflict between the C.S. Record of Right and the R.S. Record of Right, the latter prevails.ratio¶7
Applied to this dispute: the appellants derive title from the person recorded under the earlier C.S. Record of Right, while the respondents derive title from the person recorded in the later R.S. and L.R. Records of Right, so the latter prevails.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

SAT 48 of 2023 with CAN 1 of 2023, High Court at Calcutta (Appellate Side), decided 05.02.2024 — Harish Tandon, J. and Madhuresh Prasad, J.: Appeal and connected application dismissed; no order as to costs. Plaintiffs/appellants, unsuccessful in both Courts below, claimed title on the basis of the C.S. Record of Right standing in the name of Hossain Sarkar; contesting defendants/respondents traced title through several deeds from Riajuddin Sarkar and Ekram Ali, whose ownership was corroborated by R.S. and L.R. Record of Right entries. Judgment holds: an entry in a record of right neither creates nor extinguishes title, though it carries a presumption of correctness unless rebutted; on conflict between the C.S. Record of Right and the R.S. Record of Right, the later entry prevails. The appellants proved no title document showing the record entry erroneous, and the certified deposition of the respondents' first witness showed he was unsure of Hossain Sarkar's original ownership before stating that Hossain Sarkar's heirs inherited under Mohammadan law of inheritance — depositions must be read in their entirety, not on isolated words. No substantial question of law arose; the dismissals of the suit and the First Appeal were found correct.

¶1

05.02.2024

¶2

Court : 04
Item : 23
Matter : SAT
Status : DISMISSED
Bench ID : 266176
Transcriber : NANDY

¶3

In the high court at Calcutta Civil appellate jurisdiction Appellate side

¶4

SAT 48 of 2023 with CAN 1 of 2023

¶5

Abdul Kasim & Ors. Vs. Sadgar Sk. & Ors.

¶6

Mr. Partha Pratim Roy, Advocate Mr. Dyutiman Banerjee, Advocate

¶7

……for the Appellants

¶8

The plaintiffs/appellants are unsuccessful in both the Courts below in establishing their right, title and interest in respect of the suit premises. The said suit was instituted for declaration of title on the basis of C.S. Record of Right which stands in the name of one Hossain Sarkar. The property had undergone several transactions and there appears to be a dispute on the title claimed by the rival parties.

¶9

The contesting defendants/respondents traced their titles through Riajuddin Sarkar and Ekram Ali and relied upon several deeds effecting the sale of the said premises. It is categorically stated by the contesting defendants/respondents that the said Riajuddin Sarkar and Ekram Ali were the original owners having undivided equal shares in the suit premises which would further be corroborated by an entry made in the R.S. Record of Right and L.R. Record of Right.

¶10

Both the Courts held that the plaintiffs/appellants have miserably failed to prove their title in respect of the suit premises and consequently dismissed the suit as well as the First Appeal.

¶11

Learned Counsel for the appellants submits that the Court of appeal below committed serious error in

¶12

¶13

holding that though the first witness of the contesting defendants/respondents admitted the ownership of Hossain Sarkar, such admission should have been construed in the proper perspective. We have been taken to the relevant portion of the judgment of the First Appellate Court with regard to the findings made in relation to an admission as perceived by the Counsel for the plaintiffs/appellants. Even the certified copy of the deposition for the first witness of the contesting defendants/respondents is produced before us, which explicitly indicate that the said witness was not sure whether the said Hossain Sarkar was the original owner of the suit property or not. However, in the next breath the said witness deposed that after the demise of the said Hossain Sarkar, his legal heirs inherited the suit property in accordance with law of inheritance recognized under the Mohammadan Law.

¶14

In order to construe the depositions, the Court should not be swayed by a single word or the sentences but must read such depositions in its entirety. The segregation from the larger context should be eschewed and the avoidance should be ensured. The cardinal issue involved in the instant appeal is whether the entry made in the record of right creates any title into a person and the ancillary issue evolved therefrom is whether the entry made in the latter record of right would prevail over the entry in the early record of right.

¶15

So far as the main issue, as indicated here-in-above is concerned, it is no longer res integra that the entry made in the record of right neither creates title nor extinguishes title of a person. Equally true it is that there is a presumption of correctness in the entry

¶16

¶17

made in the record of right unless rebutted by the other side. Both the persons have relied upon the entry made in the respective record of rights and claimed their right, title and interest in respect of the suit premises.

¶18

As indicated above, the title is traced through several deeds by the respective parties from a different owner whose name is recorded in the respective record of right. The moment there is a conflict between the C.S. Record of Right and the R.S. Record of Right, it is the latter, which would prevail.

¶19

The plaintiffs/appellants traced their title from the person recorded under the C.S. Record of Right on the other hand the contesting defendants/respondents are deriving their right, title and interest from a person whose name is recorded in the R.S and L.R. Record of Right. The C.S. Record of Right in the earlier one followed by the R.S. and L.R. Record of Right, it is the latter which would prevail.

¶20

Apart from the same, the plaintiffs/appellants have miserably failed to prove any title document which would fortify their contention that the entry made in the record of right is erroneous.

¶21