Tripura High Court
Sri Hemanta Ghosh vs Smt. Malati Bala Ghosh on 3 July, 2024
Author: T. Amarnath Goud
Bench: T. Amarnath Goud
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
RFA 13 of 2022
1. Sri Hemanta Ghosh,
son of late Jasoda Ghosh,
resident of Karoiyamura, P.O. Bagma,
P.S. R.K. Pur, Udaipur, District-Gomati Tripura
2. Smt. Sabita Ghosh,
daughter of Sri Hemanta Ghosh,
wife of Sri Nityagopal Ghosh,
resident of Karoiyamura, P.O. Bagma,
P.S. R.K. Pur, Udaipur, District-Gomati Tripura
3. Sri Chitta Ranjan Ghosh,
son of late Joy Kumar Ghosh,
resident of Karoiyamura, P.O. Bagma,
P.S. R.K. Pur, Udaipur, District-Gomati Tripura
4. Sri Dhirendra Ghosh,
son of late Upendra Chandra Ghosh,
resident of Karoiyamura, P.O. Bagma,
P.S. R.K. Pur, Udaipur, District-Gomati Tripura
..........Appellant-Defendant(s)
Versus
Smt. Malati Bala Ghosh,
wife of late Ramesh Chandra Ghosh,
resident of Karoiyamura, P.O. Bagma,
P.S. R.K. Pur, Udaipur, District-Gomati Tripura
..........Respondent-Plaintiff(s)
For Appellant(s) : Mr. A. Sengupta, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. D.K. Daschoudhury, Adv.
Date of Judgment
& Order : 03.07.2024
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T. AMARNATH GOUD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BISWAJIT PALIT
Judgment & Order(Oral)
Heard Mr. A. Sengupta, Learned counsel appearing for the
appellants as well as Mr. D.K. Daschoudhury, Learned counsel
appearing for the respondent.
2. This is an appeal under Section 96 of the CPC assailing the
judgment dated 31.03.2022 passed by Learned Civil Judge, Senior
Division, Court No.1, Gomati District, Udaipur, Tripura in connection
with Case No.Title Suit 28 of 2019 decreeing the suit in favour of the
plaintiff-respondent.
3. At the time of hearing, Mr. A. Sengupta, Learned counsel
appearing for the appellants referred pages-9 & 10 of the judgment i.e.
last part of para-7 of the judgment and submitted that the Learned Trial
Court below came to the observation that the suit filed by the
respondent-plaintiff would not be barred by the principle of res judicata,
all though the subsequent suit was barred by the res judicata as
because the present appellants all along are/were in possession of the
suit land but the respondent-plaintiff suppressing the fact of having not
in possession filed the suit which was numbered as T.S.21 of 2008 and
the said suit was dismissed. After that, she preferred an appeal which
was numbered as T.A. 34 of 2010 and the Learned First Appellate Court
reversed the judgment of the Learned Trial Court and declared the
right, title and interest of the respondent-plaintiff. Challenging the
same, the present appellants preferred second appeal before the High
Court and this High Court by judgment dated 18.08.2016 passed in RSA
29 of 2013 was pleased to upheld the order of the Learned First
Appellate Court. But thereafter, the respondent-plaintiff manufacturing
a false and fabricated story of dispossession again filed the suit seeking
recovery of possession and the Learned Trial Court by the impugned
judgment partly allowed the suit in favour of the respondent-plaintiff
which is erroneous and not in accordance with law.
4. This appeal is a continuous litigation between the appellants
and the respondent. In the earlier litigation also the respondent-plaintiff
sought redress against the present appellants which was dismissed and
in appeal the judgment was reversed which was confirmed by the High
Court and after that, the present respondent-plaintiff preferred the suit
for recovery of possession against the present appellants who was the
defendant in the original suit and the suit is decreed in favour of the
present respondent-plaintiff.
Heard both the sides.
5. After hearing Learned counsel for the appellants it appears
that the present appeal is filed only on the sole ground that the
principles of res judicata has been violated and since the doctrine of res
judicata applies and the Court below has not appreciated that
contention of the appellants and decided the suit in favour of the
respondent-plaintiff. Hence, the present appeal is preferred seeking to
set aside the judgment and decree.
6. After going through the judgment of the Learned Court
below it appears that at the time of deciding the Issue Nos.1 & 2
Learned Court below has elaborately discussed everything in detail
regarding the principle of res judicata and came to the observation that
the same would not apply in that suit in view of the cropping up of new
facts and decided those issues in favour of the respondent-plaintiff. In
addition to the aforesaid point, no other convincing and cogent points
could be raised by the appellants at the time of hearing of argument.
7. So, we do not find any satisfactory grounds to interfere with
the judgment and decree passed by the Learned Court below. Hence,
the present appeal is dismissed. The judgment dated 31.03.2022 and
decree dated 01.04.2022 passed by Learned Civil Judge, Senior
Division, Court No.1, Gomati District, Udaipur, Tripura in Title Suit
No.28 of 2019 is hereby upheld and accordingly it is affirmed.
Prepare the decree accordingly
Send down the LCRs forthwith.
JUDGE JUDGE
Date: 2024.07.05 11:07:54 +05'30'
