Tripura High Court
District- Khowai Tripura vs Sri Pradip Bhowmik on 20 September, 2022
Page 1 of 8
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
RSA NO.17 OF 2020
On the death of Gopal Saha, his legal representatives-
1(a) Smt. Chandra Saha,
W/o. Late Gopal Saha,
Resident of Indranagar I.T.I.,
P.S.-New Capital Complex,
Agartala, District- West Tripura.
1(b) Smt. Pinki Saha,
D/o. Late Gopal Saha,
W/o. Shri Arabinda Saha,
Resident of Routhkhola,
P.O & P.S.- Bishalgarh,
Dist- Sepahijala, Tripura.
1(c) Shri Ashim Saha,
S/o. Late Gopal Saha,
Residents of Indranagar I.T.I.
P.S. New Capital Complex, Agartala,
District- West Tripura.
2. Shri Bimal Saha.
3. Shri Bishu Saha,
All are sons of Late Rajendara Lal Saha,
All are residents of Indranagar I.T.I.
P.S. New Capital Complex, Agartala,
District-West Tripura.
4. Smt. Puspa Bala Saha(Das),
D/o Late Rajendra lal Saha,
W/o. Late Gopal Das,
Resident of Santinagar,
Police Station- Teliamura,
District- Khowai, Tripura.
5. Smt. Parul Saha(Sukladas),
D/o Late Rajendra Lal Saha,
W/o Shri Sailen Sukladas,
Resident of Tuichindrai Bari, Teliamura,
Police Station- Teliamura,
Page 2 of 8
District- Khowai Tripura.
6. Smt. Usha Rani Saha(Das),
W/o. Shri Rakhal Chandra Das,
D/o. Late Rajendra Lal Saha,
Resident of Brajapur,
Police Station- Bishalgarh,
District- Sepahijala, Tripura.
----- Plaintiff Appellant(s)
Versus
1. Sri Pradip Bhowmik,
S/o Late Jatindra Chandra Bhowmik,
Resident of Indranagar,
P.S.- New Capital Complex, Agartala,
District- West Tripura.
2(a) Shri Kamal Dhanuk,
A resident of Village & Post Office- Indranagar,
Behind I.T.I. Agartala,
District- West Tripura.
2(b) Shri Rajen Dhanuk,
A resident of Purba Chanmari,
P.O.- Bankumari, Kunjaban,
Agartala,
District-West Tripura.
2(c) Shri Rajesh Dhanuk,
A resident of Indranagar,
Near Shiksha Niketan School,
P.O.- Indranagar, Agartala,
District- West Tripura.
2(d) Smt. Uma Dhanuk,
W/o. Late Chandan Dhanuk,
D/o Late Lalu Dhanuk.
2(e) Master Abinash Dhanuk,
S/o Late Chandan Dhanuk,
(being minor, representated by his mother and natural
guardian, Smt. Uma Dhanuk, Defendant No.2(d).
Page 3 of 8
Both are residents of Nandannagar Sen Para, P.O.-
Nandannagar, P.S. Bodhjung Nagar,(Harijan Abasan)
District- West Tripura, Pin-799006.
2(f) Smt. Kamali Dhanuk,
W/o late Nantu Dhanuk,
D/o Late Lalu Dhanuk,
Vill- West Chanmari School,
P.O.- Bankumari, via Kunjaban,
Agartala, West Tripura.
2(g) Shri Sankar Dhanuk,
(Husband of Sita Dhanuk predeceased daughter of Defendant
No...)
2(h) Miss Jaya Dhanuk,
D/o Shri Sankar Dhanuk.
2(i) Miss Neha Dhanuk,
D/o Shri Sankar Dhanuk.
2(j) Miss Krishna Dhanuk,
D/o Late Sankar Dhanuk,
(Serial Nos. 2(h), 2(i) and 2(j) being minor, are represented by
their father and natural guardian Shri Sankar Dhanuk 2(g).
All are residents of Harijan Colony, IGM Lane,
Rabindra Palli Quarters,
P.O.- Agartala, P.S.- West Agartala,
District- West Tripura.
----- Defendant Respondent(s)
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. S.M. Chakraborty, Sr. Advocate.
Mrs. A. Pal, Advocate.
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. T.D. Majumder, Sr. Advocate.
Mr. P. Datta, Advocate.
Mr. B. Debnath, Advocate.
Date of hearing and delivery of
Judgment & Order : 20.09.2022.
Whether fit for reporting : NO.
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T. AMARNATH GOUD
J U D G M E N T & O R D E R(ORAL)
This present second appeal has been filed under
Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 against the
judgment dated 19.11.2019 passed by the learned District,
Judge, West Tripura, Agartala in Title Appeal No.12 of 2016
affirming the judgment passed by the learned Civil
Judge(Senior Division), Court No.1, Agartala, West Tripura
dated 30.11.2015 passed in Title Suit No.23 of 2005.
2. The main contention of the plaintiff-appellants is
that their predecessor-in-interest, namely, late Rajendra Lal
Saha, got the suit land along with other lands of a total area
measuring 0.40 acres (one kani as per local measurement)
from Talukdar Rana Dahal Jung Bahadur by a registered Patta
dated 19.08.1952. After that, he sold out eight gandas and two
karas to land to one Anath Bandhu Saha, one gandas and two
karas of land to one Smt. Subhashini Saha (his own sister),
four gandas and two karas of land were acquired by the
Government and the rest portion of the land i.e. 0.11 acres,
was duly recorded in Khatian No.719 in his name. After his
death on 03.02.1988, the plaintiffs inherited the said 0.11
acres of land and they have been residing in the contiguous
land owned by Smt. Subhashini Saha, leaving the suit land
vacant. Taking that chance, the defendant-respondents (for
short, hereinafter mentioned as the defendants) dispossessed
the plaintiff-appellants from the suit land in the month of
August 1997 and constructed one latrine therein illegally and
unauthorisedly.
3. Hence, the suit was filed against the defendant-
respondents in the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Senior
Division), Court No.1, Agartala, West Tripura, for declaration of
title and for recovery of possession. The said suit was
numbered as T.S.23 of 2005.
4. Two separate written statements were filed by
the defendants denying the averments made in the plaint.
5. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the
learned Trial Court framed six number of issues and in the
judgment of the learned Trial Court, issues number 1 and 2
have been decided together, while the rest of the issues have
been decided in the same manner. While giving the findings,
the learned Court below decided issues number 1 and 2 in
favour of the plaintiffs. While deciding the said issues number 3
to 6, the learned Court below found that the predecessor-in-
interest of the plaintiffs either sold the land by him or acquired
it from him and no balance quantum of land was left with him.
So, the learned Trial Court dismissed the suit filed by the
plaintiffs.
6. Against the said judgment of the learned Trial
Court, the appellants filed an appeal under Section 96 of the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in the Court of learned District
Judge, West Tripura, Agartala, which was numbered as T.A.12
of 2016 and the learned Appellate Court dismissed the said
appeal by its judgment dated 19.11.2019 apparently affirming
the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court.
7. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the
judgment passed by the lower Appellate Court, the plaintiff-
appellants herein have preferred this instant second appeal.
8. This present second appeal was admitted in
01.10.2020 on the following substantial questions of law:-
"(i) Whether the judgment of the learned 1st
Appellate Court dismissing the appeal and affirming
the dismissal of the suit passed by the learned Civil
Judge, Sr. Division, suffers from wrong exercise of
jurisdiction as vested upon him under Section 96 of
the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
(ii) Whether the judgments of the learned
Courts below are perverse?"
9. Heard Mr. S.M. Chakraborty, learned Sr. counsel
assisted by Ms. A. Pal, learned counsel appearing for the
appellants as well as Mr. T.D Majumder, learned Sr. counsel
assisted by Mr. B. Debnath, learned counsel appearing for
respondent No.1 and Mr. P. Datta, learned counsel appearing
for respondents No.2(a), 2(b), 2(c), 2(f) and 2(g).
10. At the very inception of the argument, it came to
the notice of this Court that in the Judgment passed by the
Trial Court dated 30.11.2015, none of the exhibits were
attended to and discussed.
11. This Court finds the order passed by the Trial
Court is cryptic and the same is not a reasoned order. The Trial
Court has not considered the evidence and the exhibits marked
before the Court. Hence this instant matter is remanded back
and Trial Court is directed to pass a reasoned order considering
the evidence and also the exhibits on record. However this
Court further makes it clear that counsel of both the parties
shall be given ample opportunity of making their arguments
and if so pleases, they are at liberty to file their written
submissions also.
This exercise shall be completed within a period of
4(four) months from the date of receipt of the copy of this
order and LCRs before the Court below.
12. Accordingly this instant second appeal is allowed
and both the Trial Court and lower Appellate Court judgment
dated 30.11.2015 and 19.11.2019 respectively is set side
13. With the above observation and direction, this
instant appeal is disposed of.
14. Consequently, pending application(s), if any, also
stand closed.
Send down the LCRs.
JUDGE
suhanjit
