Smriti Debbarma (Dead) Through Legal Representative vs Prabha Ranjan Debbarma & Ors.
2023 SCC Online SC 9; 2023 INSC 8
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Sanjiv Khanna & Hon’ble Justice J.K. Maheshwari
Forum: Hon'ble Supreme Court of India
Case No.: Civil Appeal No.: 878 of 2009
Date of Decision: January 04, 2023

Facts:

  • Smriti Debbarma, the legal representative of Maharani Chandratara Devi (wife of Maharaja Birendra Kishore Debbarma), claimed ownership of "Khosh Mahal" (Schedule ‘A’ property)
  • She also claimed shares in M/s. Hotel Khosh Mahal Limited, through an unprobated Will dated 15.10.1985 filed Title Suit No. 66 of 1986 seeking declarations of ownership.
  • Prabha Ranjan Debbarma (Respondent No. 2) and Jyoti Debbarma (Respondent No. 1), along with other Respondents, were successors and purchasers of parts of the disputed property through sale deeds executed by the Managing Director of M/s. Hotel Khosh Mahal Limited.
  • The suit was filed to challenge the sale of Schedule 'A' property by Respondents 1 to 7, to confirm the Appellant's ownership and possession and to rectify the records showing the names of Respondents 8 to 12 who had bought parts of the property.
  • The suit was filed before the trial court on 19.06.1986. On 23.11.1996, the Trial court ruled in favour of Appellant by confirming ownership of Schedule ‘A’ property. Declared transfers by Respondents void, and directed rectification of records. However, no relief was granted regarding Schedule ‘B’ property.
  • The Gauhati High Court reversed the trial court’s judgment on 17.05.2006, holding that the appellant failed to provide sufficient evidence of ownership. The High Court also noted potential claims by the state government under the Tripura Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act, 1960. It directed the respondents to approach appropriate forums for ownership disputes.
  • The Appellant approached the Supreme Court seeking to overturn the High Court’s decision and reaffirm ownership of Schedule ‘A’ property. The trial court’s decree on Schedule ‘B’ property remains final.

Main Issue:

  • Has the Appellant-Plaintiff successfully discharged the burden of proof to establish her title for a declaratory decree and right to possession of the Schedule ‘A’ property?