Tripura High Court
Sri Gautam Roy vs Sri Dulal Sutradhar on 18 January, 2022
Page 1
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
RSA 21 of 2019
1. Sri Gautam Roy,
son of Sri Mahananda Roy, resident of Surjyamaninagar, Baruapara,
P.S. Amtali, District- West Tripura
2. Sri Uttam Roy,
son of Sri Mahananda Roy, resident of Surjyamaninagar, Baruapara,
P.S. Amtali, District- West Tripura
3. Sri Pranesh Roy,
son of Sri Mahananda Roy, resident of Surjyamaninagar, Baruapara,
P.S. Amtali, District- West Tripura
... Defendant-Appellants
VERSUS
1. Sri Dulal Sutradhar,
son of late Surendra Sutradhar, resident of Surjyamaninagar, Baruapara,
P.S. Amtali, District- West Tripura
2. Sri Bhulu Sutradhar,
son of late Surendra Sutradhar, resident of Surjyamaninagar, Baruapara,
P.S. Amtali, District- West Tripura
3. Smt. Prabha Sutradhar,
wife of Sri Harendra Sutradhar, resident of Dibrugarh, Subhashpalli, Assam
... Plaintiff-Respondent
For Appellant (s ) : Mr. Raju Datta, Advocate
For Respondent (s) : Mr. P. Chakraborty, Advocate
Date of hearing and delivery : 18.01.2022
of judgment order
Whether fit for reporting : No
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM LODH
JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL)
1. Heard Mr. Raju Datta, learned counsel for the defendant-appellants as
well as Mr. P. Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
2. The present second appeal originates from the judgment and decree
dated 04.01.2019 passed by the learned District Judge, West Tripura,
Agartala, in connection with Title Appeal 42 of 2014 affirming the judgment
Page 2
and decree dated 13.08.2014 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior
Division, Court no. 1, West Tripura, Agartala in Title Suit 67 of 2012.
3. At the time of admission of the appeal, the following substantial
question of law had been formulated:
"By not determining whether the suit land is attracted either by the
partition deed (Exbt.-1) or by the title deed of the defendants dated
11.11.2005 (Exbt.-B), the First Appellate Court has caused
illegality, perversity and the failure of justice?"
4. Briefly stated, the plaintiffs had filed a suit for declaration of right, title
and interest and recovery of possession over the suit land. After being
summoned, the appellant-defendants, [here-in-after referred to as the
defendants] appeared and contested the suit by filing written statement. The
defendants denied the title of the plaintiffs over the suit land, and according to
the defendants, the plaintiffs have no right to seek for a direction for recovery
of possession. The defendants have claimed that originally the joint owners of
the suit land alongwith other lands comprising of an area of 7.73 acres were
one Satish chandra Sutradhar and four others who sold out total 3.85 acres of
the suit land to one Sri Nandalal Chakraborty by dint of a registered sale deed
no. I-4398 dated 15.04.1972 and said Nandalal Chakraborty transferred the
said 3.85 acres of land to one Sushil kumar Roy vide Deed no. I-5453 dated
10.07.1989, and then said Sushil kumar Roy transferred the said total land to
the defendants vide registered Deed no. I-12218 dated 11.11.2005, and since
Page 3
then they have been enjoying the same and khatian has also been mutated in
their names and question of dispossession of the plaintiffs does not arise.
5. While deciding the title of the plaintiffs, both the courts below have
held that 0.64 acres of land was recorded in RS khatian No. 1341 against the
CS plot no. 1624/5615 in the name of Surendra chandra Sutradhar vide
Exhibit-2. Thereafter, the learned first appellate court had recorded a finding
that when he did not transfer any land from said plot to the defendants, their
claim over the suit plot is not tenable. Though learned counsel, Mr. DR
Choudhury argued that the boundary of the purchased deed of Nandalal
Chakraborty could be relayed, but, same is not necessary in view of the said
discussion. Thus, no impropriety is found in the impugned judgment.
Thereafter, the learned first appellate court held "When title to the suit land
has been established in favour of the plaintiffs, factum of possession or
dispossession loses its importance, especially when there is no claim of
adverse possession by the defendants. Moreso, PW.2, Biplab Sarkar and PW.3
Narayan Das deposed about dispossession of the plaintiffs from suit land on
10.7.2006, though in cross examination, PW.2 admitted that he did not know
the quantum of suit land but confirmed that during the year 2006 when the
defendants were cleaning jungle in the suit land PW.1 protested to it. PW.3
similarly confirmed in his cross examination that the defendants were
possessing the suit land for last 5/6 years though he also could give the details
of description of suit land. PW.4 is, however, not much reliable as in her cross
Page 4
examination she stated that the plaintiffs were still in possession of the suit
land. However, regarding the matter of dispossession evidence of PW.1, PW.2
and PW.3 can be relied upon". Both the courts below have examined the
issues regarding title, possession and dispossession of the plaintiffs. The
courts below are the fact finding courts. The learned first appellate court has
concurred with the findings of the learned trial court.
6. During the course of hearing of the present second appeal, Mr. Raju
Datta, learned counsel appearing for the defendants has submitted that the suit
land has not properly been identified and the suit land does not attract
plaintiff's Title Deed and the Deed of Partition.
7. I find this question has never been raised either before the learned trial
court or before the First Appellate court. In view of this, I find no ground in
the present second appeal since there is no substantial question of law which
is necessary to be decided.
8. In the facts and circumstances, I do not find any cogent ground to
interfere with the concurrent findings of the courts below. Accordingly, the
instant second appeal stands dismissed. The judgment and decree passed by
the courts below have been affirmed.
Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed.
Send down the LCRs forthwith.
JUDGE
Saikat
