Tripura High Court
Unknown vs For on 16 January, 2024
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
RSA No.27 of 2023
For Appellant (s) : Mr. P. Roy Barman, Sr. Adv.
Ms. A. Debbarma, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Somik Deb, Sr. Adv.
Ms. R. Chakraborty, Adv.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D PURKAYASTHA
Order
16.01.2024
Heard Mr. P. Roy Barman, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. A.
Debbarma, learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as Mr. Somik Deb,
learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. R. Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing
for the respondent.
The source of the title of the suit land as claimed by the appellants is
that their predecessor namely, Arab Miah and Julmat Miah were the Korfadar
under the Rayat Abijur Rahaman in respect of the suit land and accordingly,
ROR was also created in their names as Korfadar. Thereafter, as alleged by
the appellants, the term Korfadar was abolished from TLR & LR Act and
both said Arab Miah and Julmat Miah became Rayat in the suit land and
thereafter in revisional survey settlement operation, the ROR was created in
their names showing their status as Rayat in the suit land. Another allegation
of the appellants was brought to the effect that the respondent suddenly on
10.05.2015 came to the suit land and asked the appellants to hand over
possession of the suit land in his favour in pursuance of a decree passed in
T.S. 10 of 1992 by the then Munsif, Udaipur in their favour. Thereafter, on
scrutiny the appellants came to learn that a fraudulent decree was obtained
by the respondent showing false service of notice upon said Arab Miah and
Julmat Miah in that suit though at that time they were dead and thereby that
decree obtained by fraud was nullity.
In that suit, the following reliefs were claimed by the appellants:
(a) To declare that the plaintiffs have right, title, interest over
the suit land.
(b) To declare that the judgment and decree of T.S.No.10/1992
passed by the then Munsiff, Udaipur had obtained by the
defendant by practicing fraud and misleading upon the Court
against the dead persons namely Arab Miah and Julmat Miiah
who were not alive at that relevant time of that suit.
(c) To declare that judgment and decree of T.S. No.10/1992
passed by the then Munsiff, Udaipur are not binding upon the
plaintiffs in no way.
(d) To declare that the judgment and decree of T.S. No.10/1992
passed by the then Munsiff, Udaipur is liable to be set aside.
(e) For perpetual injunction restraining the defendant from
giving effect with the impugned judgment and decree of T.S.
No.10/1992 passed by the then Munsiff, Udaipur.
(f) For perpetual injunction restraining the defendant and his
men or agent from entering into the suit land and from
disturbing with the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs over
it.
(g) For temporary injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC in
term of the relief ('f') above till disposal of original suit.
(h) Cost of the suit.
(i) Any other relief/reliefs your honour deems fit and proper be
granted to plaintiffs.
Both the trial court and the first appellate court dismissed the suit
hohlding that the appellants did not have any right, title and interest in the
suit land.
During hearing, Mr. Roy Barman, learned senior counsel strongly
argued that the rights of predecessor of the appellants as Korfadar is
admitted, which is a heritable right and therefore, the appellants are entitled
to protect their possession over the suit land at least by a decree of
injunction.
Considered the submission.
The basic claim of the appellants in the suit is declaration of their right,
title and interest in respect of the suit property and even if, for argument
sake, the said judgment passed in T.S.10 of 1992 is held to be not binding
upon the appellants, same being a fraudulent decree, still the basic relief of
declaration of right, title and interest cannot be passed in favour of the
appellants inasmuch as there is no satisfactory explanation in the plaint as to
how the predecessor of the appellants being Korfadar suddenly became
Rayat in the suit land. The explanation given in Para 5 of the plaint that
before revisional survey and settlement operation, the term Korfadar was
abolished in TLR & LR Act, 1960 and therefore, they became Rayat, is not at
all convincing.
Considering thus, no substantial question of is found involved in the
case to be formulated for final hearing of the case.
In view of the above, this second appeal is not admitted and
accordingly, disposed of.
Send a copy of this order to the first appellate court and also to the
trial court.
JUDGE
SATABDI Digitally signed by SATABDI
DUTTA
DUTTA Date: 2024.01.17 11:09:11
+05'30'
Sujay
