DEVI PRASAD SHARMA Vs. STATE OF SIKKIM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Defendants No.2 and 3 jointly, Defendants No.4 and 5 jointly, Defendant No.6 individually and Defendant No.7 individually (Respondents No.2 and 3, Respondents No.4 and 5, Respondent No.6 and Respondent No.7 herein), filed applications respectively, under Order VII Rule 11 read with Sec. 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), with Defendants No.6 and 7 specifically mentioning the provision of sub-Rule (a) and (d) of Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, before the Learned Principal District Judge, Gangtok, in Title Suit No.32 of 2022, seeking rejection of the Plaint filed by the Plaintiff (Appellant herein). The Learned Court vide the impugned Order, dtd. 14/9/2023, concluded that although the Plaint disclosed a cause of action, but it was barred by the law of limitation and rejected the Plaint. Aggrieved thereof, the Plaintiff/ Appellant is before this Court assailing the Order.

(2.) The parties shall hereinafter be referred to as per their litigative status before the Learned Trial Court.

(3.) To comprehend the matter in its correct perspective, a brief summation of facts are essential. The Plaintiff filed a Suit for declaration, recovery of possession, injunction and other consequential reliefs valued at Rs.50,00,00,000.00 (Rupees fifty crores) only, before the Court (supra). The Plaintiff and Defendant No.8 are brothers. The Plaintiff's case is that when he was a minor, his father, Late Churamani Sharma had sold an area measuring 2.30 acres, bearing Plot No.571, situated at West Pendam Block, Gangtok District, Sikkim, to Defendant No.2, the Horticulture Department, Government of Sikkim. His father passed in the year 1989. From 2012 to 2018 when the Defendant No.8 was posted as Assistant Engineer at Pakyong District, he was told by one Churamani Dhakal that, papers regarding land, belonging to their father "Churamani Sharma" was sent to him by the Defendant No.2, mistaking him to be Churamani Sharma. As he had cordial relations with Churamani Sharma, he informed his namesake of the above facts. Their father, however suffered a stroke and consequent speech impairment, but prior in time he had mentioned to the Plaintiff that compensation had not been paid to him by Defendant No.2 for the property acquired (supra) from him, although compensation for standing crops had been paid. Pursuant to the information from Churamani Dhakal, Defendant No.8 made enquiries relating to the land acquisition of their father and payment of compensation thereof. After wending through official procedure, including an application filed under the Right to Information Act, 2005, before the Defendant No.3, a joint verification of the records was carried out with the concerned officials of the Defendant No.2, Defendant No.4 and the Defendant No.8 on 20/12/2019. The records with Defendant No.3 revealed that, the property was recorded in their late father's name during 1950-52 as Plot No.571 measuring 2.30 acres. During 1979- 80 the said landed property was re-numbered as Plot No.2233, 2229/P, 2234/p and 2235/p, of which only Plot No.2233, measuring a total area of 1.60 acres, was found to be recorded in the name of the Defendant No.2. The other three plot numbers were found to be recorded in the name of the private Defendants No.6 and 7. It was also found that, vide communication dtd. 16/3/1997, of the then Secretary, Land Revenue Department, to the District Collector, a sum of Rs.3,910.00 (Rupees three thousand and ten) only, was to be disbursed to the Plaintiff's father. Further, communication dated 18- 09-1976 of the Defendant No.3, to the Defendant No.4, reflected the requirement to acquire the land of Churamani Sharma, bearing Plot No.571, measuring 2.30 acres. The remarks therein indicated that, the property had already been handed over to the Defendant No.2. Communication dtd. 8/2/1977, addressed to Churamani Sharma, by the District Collector, indicated that Rs.13,800.00 (Rupees thirteen thousand and eight hundred) only, had been 'sanctioned' in favour of Churamani Sharma for the land transaction, directing him to collect the same from the office of the District Collector. The Defendant No.5 was however unable to furnish any receipt of payment, signed by the Plaintiff's father for the land transaction as the above communications are not receipts of payment of compensation. Hence, the Suit.