For vs For
2021 Latest Caselaw 912 Tri

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 912 Tri
Judgement Date : 14 September, 2021

Tripura High Court

For vs For on 14 September, 2021

                    HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                          AGARTALA
                       RSA No.12 of 2021

For Appellant(s)       :     Mr. N. Chowdhury, Adv.

For Respondent(s)      :     None

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. TALAPATRA

Order 14/09/2021

Heard Mr. N. Chowdhury, learned counsel appearing for the

appellant.

This is an appeal under Section 100 of the CPC from the

judgment and decree respectively dated 01.05.2021 and

11.05.2021 delivered in Title Appeal 49 of 2017 by the District

Judge, West Tripura, Agartala, hereinafter referred to as the first

appellate court. By the said judgment, the appeal was dismissed

with certain modification in the judgment, and decree as passed

by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, West Tripura, Agartala, Court

No.1 in Title Suit No.67 of 2015.

This appeal is against the concurrent finding of fact.

Mr. N. Chowdhury, learned counsel appearing for the

appellant has quite stoutly submitted that the plaintiff has

claimed that the defendant No.1 has executed a sale-deed

bearing No.1-3909 dated 30.05.2017. On the basis of that sale-

deed the original plaintiff asserted his title over the suit land, but

the defendant No.1 by filing the written statement has denied to

have accepted any consideration money or executed the sale-

deed.

The original plaintiff who is now represented by the

respondents No.1(a) to 1(d) sought cancellation of the gift deed

bearing No.1-7610 dated 30.11.2013 which was executed by the

defendant No.1.

Mr. N. Chowdhury, learned counsel has further submitted

that both the courts below failed to appreciate the documentary

evidence being Exhibits A(i), A(ii), B, C series and D series

wherefrom it can be clearly gathered that the plaintiff has no

right title and possession over the suit land and it would also

clearly transpire that the sale-deed No. 1-3909 dated 30.05.2017

[Exbt.11] is a product of fraudulent act and not a valid

document.

Admit this appeal on the following substantial questions of

law:

(i) Whether for non-consideration or for mis-reading of the documents admitted in the evidence as Exbt. A(i), A(ii), B, C series and D series, is the impugned judgment rendered perverse and unsustainable? and

(ii) Whether the instrument being sale-deed No.1-3909 dated 30.05.2017 has been proved in the evidence in conformity to the provisions of Section-68 of the Evidence Act or whether that aspect of the matter being not considered in the perspective by both the courts the admission of the said in the evidence is liable to interfered with?