Tripura High Court
Sri Pratap Chandra Das vs ) Smt. Hira Bala Das on 8 July, 2022
[1]
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
RFA 06 OF 2019
Sri Pratap Chandra Das,
S/o Late Prasanna Kr. Das,
Village & P.O. - Jagannathpur,
P.S. - Kailashahar, Unakoti, Tripura.
---- Appellant.
Versus
Pravat Chandra Das having died, his heirs are:
1) Smt. Hira Bala Das,
W/o Late Pravat Ch. Das.
2) Sri Paltu Das,
3) Sri Pabitra Das,
S/o Late Pravat Chandra Das.
All of village-Sukantanagar,Kumarghat,
P.O. & P.S.-Kumarghat, Unakoti, Tripura.
4) Sri Parimal Ch. Das,
5) Sri Ratan Das,
S/o Late Pravat Ch. Das.
All of village & P.O. - Jagannathpur,
P.S. - Kailashahar, Unakoti, Tripura
6) Smt. Sukriti Das,
D/o Late Pravat Ch. Das,
Village - Boroitali, P.O. - Santail, P.S. - Kailashahar, Unakoti, Tripura.
7) Smt. Milan Das,
D/o Late Pravat Ch. Das,
South Panisagar, P.O. & P.S. - Panisagar, North Tripura.
8) Smt. Nisha Rani Das,
[2]
D/o Late Pravat Ch. Das,
Village - Mashauli, P.O. - Kanchanbari,
P.S. - Kumarghat, Unakoti, Tripura.
................ Principal Respondents.
Bipin Malakar having died his heirs :
9) (a) Sri Gourango Malakar,
(b) Sri Uma Charan Malakar,
All of village & P.O. - Kanchanbari,
P.S. - Kumarghat, Unakoti, Tripura.
10) Smt. Shefali Das,
W/o Parindra Das, Village & P.O.- Jagannathpur,
P.S. Kailashahar, Unakoti, Tripura.
....... Proforma Respondents.
For Appellant(s) : Mr. A. Pal, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. H. Deb, Advocate.
Date of hearing : 11.03.2022
Date of delivery of Judgment and order : 08.07.2022
Whether fit for reporting : Yes
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ARINDAM LODH
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G. CHATTOPADHYAY
JUDGMENT & ORDER
(Arindam Lodh, J)
This is a first appeal filed under Section 96 read with Order
41 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, challenging the legality and
validity of the judgment and decree dated 31.01.2019, passed by
[3]
learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Court No.1, Kailashahar, Unakoti
Tripura in Title Suit No.12 of 2017.
2. Facts
of the case as surfaced, in brief, are that, the plaintiff-
appellant, Pratap Chandra Das (here-in-after referred to as "plaintiff")
and late Pravat Chandra Das, i.e. the predecessor of defendant nos.1 to
8 (here-in-after referred to as "defendants"), were two brothers. The
parents of these two brothers, namely, Late Prasanna Kumar Das
together with Late Hiran Bala Das owned and possessed landed
property measuring 14.77 acres described in the first schedule of the
plaint. Late Prasanna Kumar Das and Late Hiran Bala Das sold the
entire first schedule of land measuring 14.77 acres by sale deed No.1-
2470, dated 28.04.1969 to Dhirendra Ram Malakar and Kukil Ram
Malakar. Thereafter, the said two purchasers sold a portion of the land
measuring 10.34 acres out of 14.77 acres to the plaintiff-appellant by
registered sale deed No.1-4959, dated 24.12.1969. It was also pleaded
that the above mentioned two purchasers sold land measuring 9 kanis
i.e. 3.60, acres and further land measuring 2 kanis 2 gandas 3 karas 3
durs i.e. 0.865 acres (out of 14.77 acres) to one Anima Sundari Paul by
two registered sale deeds No.1-4716, dated 07.11.1969 and 1-4805,
dated 26.11.1969. The said Anima Sundari Paul thereafter, also sold
[4]
land measuring 0.865 acres and 2.80 acres (7 kanis) to the plaintiff
(Pratap Chandra Das) by two separate sale deeds No.1-4885, dated
22.12.1970 and sale deed No.2-4884, dated 22.11.1970. Thus, it was
the plea of the plaintiff that he became the owner of the entire first
scheduled land, measuring 14.77 acres. It was further pleaded that out
of 14.77 acres, the plaintiff subsequently sold 10 kanis 10 gandas i.e.
3.96 acres to the predecessor of defendants No.1 to 8, by registered
sale deed No.1-7860, dated 19.12.1970 as mentioned in the second
schedule of the plaint. Hence, the plaintiff remained the owner of land
measuring 10.81 acres (14.77 acres - 3.96 acres). After the demise of
Pravat Chandra Das on 25.02.1998, the legal heirs of Late Pravat
Chandra Das, filed TS No.10 of 2004, against the plaintiff, alleging
that they had been dispossessed by the plaintiff from the land
measuring 3.96 acres. Subsequent to the aforesaid suit, the defendants
gradually started to invade and dispossessed the plaintiff (since midst
of September, 2013 to 15th February, 2015) from the 4th schedule suit
land measuring 5.82 acres (10.81 acres - 4.99 acres)(as per side
position 5.99 acres). As a result, the plaintiff continued to have in
possession of land measuring 4.99 acres (10.81acres -5.82 acres) only
of the third schedule as described in the plaint. Moreover, the
[5]
defendant nos.1 to 8 have illegally set up a homestead within the suit
land. It was also pleaded that there were some anomalies in the
position of the ROR and the R.S. khatian no.192 of the suit land and
wrongly reflected the name of one disinterested person, namely Sefali
Bala Das.
3. The defendants No.1, 2, 4, 6, 7 and 8 had contested the suit
by way of filing a common written statement wherein they stated that
the land measuring 1.30 acres under Khatian No.87, R.S. Plot
No.955/2565, shabek dag No.149/800 out of the suit land described in
4th schedule of the plaint was originally belonged to (1) Rajranibala
Das, (2) Jyotsna Rani Das and (3) Rashandra Das who on 24.04.1980
by executing a registered deed No.1-1644/1980 had sold out the suit
land to the defendant No.4 and handed over the possession of the same
land on 24.04.1980 and since then the defendant no.4 had been
possessing the same land. It was also pleaded that the land measuring
9.52 acres under Khatian nos.91/1 and 91/2 of R.S. Plot No.1031 &
1032 were the joint property of the plaintiff and defendants, but the
plaintiff was in possession of land measuring 8.80 acres, depriving the
defendants. It was further pleaded that the land under khatian Nos.97/1
& 97/2 measuring 5.92 acres was the property of the plaintiff and the
[6]
defendants, and the plaintiff was in possession of land measuring 1.38
acres, whereas, the defendant nos.1 to 8 were in possession of land
measuring 0.40 acres and the rest of land was in joint possession of
plaintiff and defendant nos.1 to 8. It was further pleaded that defendant
no.4 was the owner of land measuring 1.41 acres of land under khatian
no.89. Thus, the defendants prayed for dismissal of the suit of the
plaintiff.
4. The description of land as stated in the schedules are as
under:-
1st. Schedule (Given as per the regd. Kabala dated 28.4.1969)
District Unakoti, Tripura, P.S.- Kailashahar, Porgona-
Birchandranagar, Tehsil-earlier Birchandranagar now at Fatik
Roy, mouja-Jagannathpur, Holding No. 85, old khatian No. 166,
old c.s.plot no. and Holding No.77, old Khatian No.157, old
441 501
c.s.plot nos.438/439 and 441/442/443/ / , Holding No. 90, old
786 838
Khatian No. 175, old c.s.plot no. , in this block total land area
14.77 Ac., bounded as below:
North - Originally Bipin Malakar and Jogendra Malakar and
Bhakta Malakar and Path of Prasanna Das,
South - Originally Joy Hari Das and Sanat Das and others,
East - Cherra(streamlet) and originally Gajendra Malakar,
West -Originally Bhakta Malakar and Banshi Ruhidas and also
land boundary of Jagannathpur Tea Estate. Class of Land Basthu,
Chara, Pukur and Tilla etc.
2nd Schedule
District Unakoti, Tripura, P.S.- Kailashahar, Porgona-
Birchandranagar, Tehsil-earlier Birchandranagar now at Fatik
Roy, mouja-Jagannathpur, old Khatian no. 157, Holding No. 77,
[7]
old c.s.plot no. 441 Corresponding to R.S. 1053 of area' 70 Ac. Of
R.S. Khatian No. 91/1. And old c.s.plot No.441Corresponding to
R.S.plot No. 1053 of area '70 Ac. Of R.S. Khatian No. 91/1, and old
c.s. plot No. corresponding to R.S. plot No. 1054 of area 1.26
Ac. Of R.S. Khatian No. 91/2, respectively of class Na1 and Tilla,
in total 1 and area 3.96 Ac. (i.e. about 10 Kanies), being bounded
as below:
North - Big Ail and further north_Pratap Ch. Das,
South - Possessor-Rama Kanta Das,
East - Earlier Prasanna Kr. Das now Pratap Ch. Das,
West - Home-stead of Prasanna Das now of Parimal Das and
other heirs of Late Pravat Das.
3rd Schedule (Land in possession of plaintiff)
District Unakoti, Tripura, P.S.- Kailashahar, Porgona-
Birchandranagar, Tehsil-earlier Birchandranagar now at Fatik
Roy, mouja-Jagannathpur
Sl. R.S.K R.S.plot Class of
Area Remarks, if any
No. hatian No. land. in
No. acres
1 91/1 1044 Pukur 0.30 All these plots are in
2 91/2 1043 Pukurpar 0.20 single block with
3 91/2 1047 Viti Tilla 0.52 boundaries as below.
4 91/1 1046 Bagan 0.62 North-village path and
Tilla others,
5 91/2 1048 Tilla 0.45 South-Heirs of late
6 91/1 1049 Tilla 0.34 Pravat Das,
7 91/2 1052/2436 Vita Tilla 0.14 East-Cherra and village
8 91/1 1052 Tilla 1.80 path,
9 91/2 1052/2436 Lunga 0.12 West-Illegal occupiers
10 97/2 965(P) Tilla 0.50 heirs of late Pravat
Das.
Total-
4.99
Ac.
[8]
4th Schedule (Suit land)
District Unakoti, Tripura, P.S.- Kailashahar, Porgona-
Birchandranagar, Tehsil-earlier Birchandranagar now at Fatik
Roy, mouja-Jagannathpur.
Sl. R.S.Khatian R.S.plot Class of Area in
No. No. No. land. acres
1 87 955/2565 Lunga 1.30
2 91/1 1031 Lunga 0.24
3 91/1 1032 Nal 0.48
4 97/2 961 Tilla 1.60
5 97/2 963 Lunga 0.30
6 97/2 965 (Part in 1.12
Tilla
western
portion)
7 97/1 959 Lunga 0.20
8 97/1 960 Bastu Tilla 0.20
9 192 954 Lunga 0.55
Total-5.99
Ac.
About 15
Kanies
5. After exchange of pleadings, learned trial court framed the
following issues:
(i) Whether the suit is maintainable?
(ii) Whether the plaintiff purchased the whole 1st
schedule land of plaint measuring 14.77 acres?
[9]
(iii) Whether the plaintiff remained the owner of
land measuring 10.81 acre after sale from her
purchased land?
(iv) Whether the plaintiff has any right, title and interest
over the 4th schedule land of plaint?
(v) Whether the defendants No.1 to 8 gradually w.e.f the
middle of September, 2013 to 15.02.2015 illegally
dispossessed the plaintiff from the suit land described
in 4th schedule of plaint?
(vi) Whether the 4th schedule land of khatian No.87,
R.S. Plot No. 955/2565 is purchased by defendant
No.4 from the original owners?
(vii) Whether the 4th schedule land of khatian No.91/1,
R.S. Plot No. 1031 and 1032 and khatian No.97/1 and
97/2 are joint property and in joint possession of
plaintiff and defendants?
(viii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the mesne profit
as claimed?
[10]
(ix) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief as
prayed for and or any other relief/reliefs in this suit?
6. The suit was proceeded ex parte against the defendant
Nos.3,5,9(a),9(b) as they failed to file written statement.
7. I have gone through the judgment of learned court below
passed in TS 12/2017. Learned trial court after hearing the parties to
the lis and considering the evidence and materials on record decided
issue nos. II , III,IV,V,VIII and IX against the plaintiff i.e. the
appellant herein and issue nos. VI decided in favour of the defendant .
Issue no. I and VII was decided in favour of the plaintiff. Ultimately,
the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed on contest with cost.
8. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid
judgment and decree, the plaintiff-appellant has preferred the instant
first appeal before this court.
9. I have heard Mr. A. Pal, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the appellant. I have also heard Mr. H. Deb, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the respondents.
10. Mr. Pal, learned counsel for the appellant has fairly
submitted that the only ground he likes to agitate that the
[11]
defendants/respondents have admitted in their earlier suit that the
appellant was the owner of 14.77 acres of land and for that reason they
cannot retract from their statements made in TS 10 of 2004 (Ext-12),
but, the learned trial Judge could not appreciate such admission of the
defendants for which this court should interfere with the findings of the
learned trial Judge.
11. I have perused the judgment passed by the learned trial
Judge. In my opinion, the following discussions would be relevant to
decide the aforesaid question posed by learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the appellant which are extracted here-under:
" From Ext. 12, the judgment of TS 10 of 2004, I
find, in the said case, the defendant No. 1 to 8 pleaded that
the plaintiff purchased 14.77 acre of land including the
land of previous khatian No. 157 and present khatian
No.91/1 & 91/2 of C.S.Plot Number(shabek) No.501/838
Hal 1054 and shabek C.S.Plot No.441 and hal 1053 by
registered sale deed No. 2470 dated 29.04.1969. Thus, I
find, purchase of 14.77 acre land by plaintiff was stated by
the defendant No.1 to 8 in TS 10 of 2004. However, from
the pleading and evidence, I find, plaintiff merely
purchased 10.34 acre land by Ext.2 (sale deed No.1-4959
dated 24.12.1969), 0.865 acre (2 kani 2 ganda 3 kara 3 dur)
by Ext. 5 (Sale deed No.1-4885 dated 22.12.1970), and 2.80
acre of land (7 kani) by Ext.6 (sale deed No.1-4884 dated
[12]
22.12.1970). Thus, by way of purchase the plaintiff became
the owner of total land measuring (10.34 acre+ 0.086 acre+
2.80 acre) 14.005 acre only and not 14.77 acre.
9. The plaintiff pleaded and adduced evidence that
out of purchased land after sale of land measuring 10 kanis
10 ganda of land (3.96 acre) by plaintiff to defendant No.4,
the plaintiff remained the owner of 10.81 acre of land. But,
I find, out of purchased land measuring 14.005 acre as
stated above, the plaintiff sold land measuring 10 and half
kani (4.04 acre). Thus, after sale, the plaintiff remained
owner of land measuring (14.005-4.20) 9.805 acre only and
not as claimed by plaintiff of land measuring 10.81 acre. As
plaintiff claimed to be in possession of 3rd schedule land of
plaint measuring 4.99 acre out of his remaining land, I find,
the remaining land of the plaintiff stands (9.80 acre - 4.99
acre) 4.81 acre. Therefore, the claim of the plaintiff of
dispossession of his remaining land measuring 5.99 acre as
described in 4th schedule land of the plaint appears to be
excess claim of his alleged entitlement of remaining land.
10. In this case, the plaintiff claimed to be the owner
of land measuring 1.30 acre of khatian No.87 of R.S. plot
No. 955/2565. From Ext.1, the sale deed jointly executed by
four owners including plaintiff, I find, it is specifically and
clearly mentioned that land measuring 2.10 acre of land
was sold by seller No.1 Prasanna Kumar Das of land of
khatian No.166, Plot No.442/785 out of total land
measuring 5 kani 5 ganda 3 kara 1 kranta 10 dur of holding
No.85 and seller No.2 and 3, the plaintiff and predecessor of
[13]
defendant No.1 to 8 sold land measuring 11 acre 7 shatak of
khatian No.157 of holding No.77 of Plot No.483, 439, 441,
442, 443, 441/786, 501/838 and seller No.4 Hiran Bala Das
sold land measuring 1.60 acre of holding No.90 khatian
No.175, dag No. 149/800. Thus, I find, from khatian No.
175, dag No. 149/800 only land measuring 1.60 acre was
sold and the same is ultimately purchased by the plaintiff.
From Para 4 of the plaint and Para 5 of examination in
chief of PW.1 and PW.2, it can be found that there are total
land measuring 3.60 acre in khatian No. 175, old C.S.
Plot No. 149/800. Thus, after sale of land measuring 1.60
acre there remains further land measuring 2.00 acre.
Hence, it cannot be said that plaintiff purchased the whole
land of dag No.149/800 of khatian No.175. Therefore, any
sale either prior or after of the sale by four owner either to
the alleged disinterested person namely Sefali Bala Das by
Ext.H, the sale deed No.1-5463 dated 26.12.1966 for land
measuring 0.70 acre and to the vendor of the defendant
No.4 by Ext.A, the sale deed No.1-5462 dated 26.11.1969 for
land measuring 1.30 acre [Total (0.70 acre + 1.30 acre=)
2.00 acre] out of the remaining 2.00 acre of land by Hiran
Bala Das is proper. Thus, I find, the purchase of land
measuring 1.30 acre by defendant No.4 from his vendor and
sale of the said land by Hiran Bala Das to the vendor of the
plaintiff are not prejudiced to the plaintiff.
That apart, the sale by Hiran Bala Das to the vendor of the
defendant No. 4 is prior sale and shall prevail."
[14]
12. I have considered the above discussions of the learned trial
court. On scrutiny of all the documents, sale deeds as well as the record
of rights (khatians), I do not find any error of facts in the findings of
the learned trial court when he held that:
"Thus, considering all, I find it cannot be said that the
plaintiff purchased the whole 1st schedule land of plaint
measuring 14.77 acres. I am also unable to say that plaintiff
remained owner of land measuring 10.81 acre after sale from
the purchased land. It also cannot be said that plaintiff has
any right, title and interest over the 4th schedule land of
plaint."
13. Regarding the controversies raised in this appeal as afore-
stated by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff-appellant,
I am also in agreement with the view taken by the learned trial court as
to how the court should read and construe the pleadings of the parties.
It is settled law that mofussil pleadings are to be considered as a whole,
liberally and must be construed reasonably.
14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Devasahayam vs. P.
Savithramma, reported in (2005) 7 SCC 653 held that:
"The pleadings as are well known must construed reasonably.
The contention of the parties in their pleadings must be culled
out from reading the same as whole. Different consideration
[15]
on construction of pleadings may arise between pleadings in
the mofussil courts and pleadings in the original side of the
High Court."
In this respect, the Hon'ble Supreme court in Des Raj and
Ors. vs. Bhagat Ram (Dead) By Lrs. And Ors., reported in 2007 (2)
SCC 641, held that:
"It may be true that in his plaint, the plaintiff did not
specifically plead ouster but muffosil pleadings, as is well
known, must be construed liberally. Pleadings must be
construed as a whole."
15. That apart, in the opinion of this court, any statement or
pleadings cannot falsify the documentary evidences adduced by the
parties. The learned trial court having gone through the evidences and
materials on records came to a finding that the contesting defendants
have made no contradictory pleading. The documents being
considered, it is found that the suit land is not covered by the sale
deeds of plaintiff, for which, it can be said that the defendants correctly
pleaded that the sale deeds of plaintiff do not attract suit land. In earlier
suit i.e. TS 10 of 2004, the defendants merely pleaded that plaintiff
purchased 14.77 acres of land including 2nd schedule land of plaint of
this suit (which was suit land of TS 10 of 2004) and, therefore, the plea
[16]
of the defendants in this case that the plaintiff did not purchase the suit
land (4th schedule land of plaint of the suit) is not contradictory as suit
land does not fall within the purchased land of the plaintiff.
16. In furtherance thereof, it is the settled proposition of law
that title to land cannot pass by admission when the statute requires a
deed. Ordinarily, in civil suits pleadings in most of the cases are based
on documents/records; however, sometimes pleadings are made on the
basis of one's own knowledge, or information gathered from reliable
source, or sometimes may be based on one's own perceptions. But, in
case of conflict, without any sort of debate, the documentary evidence
relating to a particular fact in issue that supports the pleadings of a
party shall prevail over the pleadings based on such
knowledge/information, or perception, etc. that run in contra to the
contents of such documents/records. As a sequel, admission of a party
in regard to particular fact in issue which is inconsistent to the
contents of a document, then, such admission shall not dislodge the
proven documentary evidence.
(Emphasis supplied)
[17]
17. In the light of the above legal and factual aspects, the
instant appeal is devoid of merits and thus dismissed. The findings and
the decisions thereupon returned by learned Civil Judge, Senior
Division while dealing with all the issues are hereby affirmed.
Accordingly, the judgment and decree passed by learned
trial court remain undisturbed.
Send down the LCRs.
JUDGE JUDGE
Puspita/Snigdha
