Supreme Court restores plaintiff's ownership rights over disputed land in Ramgarh Cantonment in title suit filed in 1989
Justices Abhay S Oka & Pankaj Mithal [08-07-2024]

Read Order: HAR NARAYAN TEWARI (D) THR. LRS v. CANTONMENT BOARD, RAMGARH CANTONMENT & ORS [SC- CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8829 OF 2010]

LE Correspondent

New Delhi, July 9, 2024: The Supreme Court has set aside the orders of the Jharkhand High Court and the First Appellate Court, restoring the trial court's decree in favor of the plaintiff-appellant, late Har Narayan Tewari, represented by his legal representatives. The apex court held that Tewari had successfully proved his ownership rights over the disputed 0.30 acres of land in Ramgarh Cantonment.

The case pertains to a title suit filed by Tewari in 1989, seeking a declaration of his title over the disputed land, comprising 0.12 acres of Plot No. 432 and 0.18 acres of Plot No. 438 in Ramgarh village. Tewari claimed that the land was settled in his favor by Raja Bahadur Kamakshya Narayan Singh in 1942.

While the trial court had decreed the suit in Tewari's favor in 2000, the First Appellate Court reversed the decision in 2006, holding that the suit was barred by the principle of res judicata due to an earlier suit filed by Maharani Lalita Rajya Lakshmi, the Raja's wife, in 1964. The Jharkhand High Court dismissed Tewari's second appeal in 2009. However, the Supreme Court, in its judgment dated July 8, 2024, held that the suit was not barred by res judicata, as the issue of Tewari's rights over the disputed land was never directly or substantially adjudicated in the earlier suit.

The top court noted that the Cantonment Board, Ramgarh, had only claimed rights over 2.55 acres of land, which did not include the disputed 0.30 acres claimed by Tewari. The apex court also observed that Tewari had provided sufficient evidence to prove the settlement of the disputed land in his favor by the Raja in 1942, including a Hukumnama dated April 7, 1943, and an order by the Additional Collector, Hazaribagh, in 1963, confirming the settlement and its subsequent approval by the State on enhancement of rent.

The apex court further held that the fact that the name of the plaintiff-appellant was also mutated in the revenue records proves it beyond doubt, in the absence of any contrary evidence that he is in possession of the suit land. In the earlier suit as well, the Cantonment Board has accepted that the plaintiff-appellant has been realizing rent of the shops existing over the suit land from the tenants.

The Apex Court thus held that the First Appellate Court manifestly erred in reversing the finding of the court of first instance that the plaintiff-appellant is in settled possession of the suit land and he has successfully proved his ownership rights over the same. Accordingly, the judgment and order of the High Court dated 01.04.2009 and that of the First Appellate Court dated 28.06.2006 were set aside and the judgment and order dated 16.03.2000 passed by the trial court restored decreeing the title suit of the plaintiff-appellant but with no order as to costs.