Tripura High Court
) A) Smt. Anita Nath vs ) Sri Jayanta Debnath on 12 July, 2024
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
RSA No.25 of 2021
On the death of Swapan Debnath, whose legal representatives are:-
As per the order dt. 01.12.2023 of the Hon'ble Court necessary
correction has been made as follows:
1) a) Smt. Anita Nath, Age-52
W/O Late Swapan Kr. Debnath,
b) Smt. Mandira Nath, Age-26
D/O Late Swapan Kr. Debnath,
c) Smt. Sebika Nath, Age-20
D/O Late Swapan Kr. Debnath,
d) Sri Satyam Kumar Nath, Age-24
S/O Late Swapan Kr. Debnath,
e) Smt. Mallika Nath(Minor), Age-13
D/O Late Swapan Kumar Debnath,
Appellant No.1(e) being minor is represented by her mother
and natural guardian Appellant No-1(a)
All are of village- Deocherra, P.O-Deocherra,
P.S-Panisagar, District- North Tripura.
2) Sri Bijan Kumar Nath, Age-56
S/O Late Jogendra Ch. Nath,
Village and P.O-Deocherra,
P.S-Panisagar, District- North Tripura
------Plaintiff-Appellants
Versus
1) Sri Jayanta Debnath,
S/O Late Narendra Ch. Debnath,
of Netaji Para, Nayapara,
P.O & P.S-Dharmanagar,
District-North Tripura.
------Principal Defendant Respondent
2) Smt. Bharati Nath,
W/O- Sri Sukumar Nath,
D/O- Late Jogendra Ch. Nath
Village and P.O- Deocherra,
P.S- Panisagar, District- North Tripura
----Pro Defendant Respondents
along with
RSA No.26 of 2021
1) a) Smt. Anita Nath, Age-52
W/O- Late Swapan Debnath,
Page 2 of 37
b) Smt. Mandira Nath, Age-26
D/O- Late Swapan Debnath,
c) Smt. Sebika Nath, Age-20
D/O- Late Swapan Debnath,
d) Sri Satyam Kumar Nath, Age-24
S/O- Late Swapan Debnath,
e) Smt. Mallika Nath(Minor), Age-13
D/O- Late Swapan Kumar Debnath,
Appellant No.1(e) being minor is represented by her mother
and natural guardian Appellant No-1(a)
All are of village- Deocherra, P.O-Deocherra,
P.S-Panisagar, District- North Tripura.
2) Sri Bijan Kumar Nath, Age-56
S/O- Late Jogendra Ch. Nath,
Village and P.O- Deocherra,
P.S.- Panisagar, District- North Tripura
3) Smt. Bharati Nath, Age-54
W/O-Sri Sukumar Nath,
D/O-Late Jogendra Ch. Nath
Village and P.O- Deocherra,
P.S- Panisagar,
District- North Tripura
------Defendant-Appellants
Versus
1. Shri Jayanta Debnath,
2. Shri Sushanta Debnath
S/O Late Narendra Ch Deb Nath,
Both of Nayapara, Dharmanagar town,
P.O. & P.S. Dharmanagar,
Dist. North Tripura, Tripura
3. Smti. Gita Deb Nath
D/O Late Narendra Ch Debnath,
W/O Sri Swapan Kr. Debnath
of Algapur Road, Dharmanagar town,
P.O. & P.S. Dharmanagar,
Dist.- North Tripura, Tripura
4. Smti. Sandhya Debnath,
D/O. Late Narendra Ch Debnath,
W/O Shri Parichay Debnath,
of Dhaleswar road, No.13,
Agartala, West Tripura, Tripura
----Plaintiff Respondent
In RSA No.25 of 2021
For Appellant(s) : Mr. S. M. Chakraborty, Sr. Adv,
Mrs. P. Chakraborty, Adv.
Page 3 of 37
For Respondents : Mr. P. Roy Barman, Sr. Adv,
Mr. Samarjit Bhattacharjee, Adv,
Mr. Kawsik Nath, Adv.
In RSA No.26 of 2021
For Appellant(s) : Mr. S. M. Chakraborty, Sr. Adv,
Mrs. P. Chakraborty, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. P. Roy Barman, Sr. Adv,
Mr. Samarjit Bhattacharjee, Adv,
Mr. Kawsik Nath, Adv.
Date of hearing : 04.07.2024
Date of delivery of
Judgment & Order : 12.07.2024
Whether fit for
reporting : YES
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BISWAJIT PALIT
Judgment & Order
This is an appeal under Section 100 of CPC filed by
the appellants and both the appeals are taken up together for
hearing and decision as both the appeals have arisen out of a
common judgment dated 07.06.2018 delivered by Learned
District Judge, North Tripura, Dharmanagar in T.A. No.11 of
2016 analogously with T.A. No.12 of 2016 which were
preferred challenging the common judgment dated
11.02.2016 and decree dated 23.02.2016 passed in two
separate title suits bearing no.T.S. No.9 of 2013(Original case
no.T.S. No.41 of 2012) and T.S. No.37 of 2012.
2. Heard Learned Senior Counsel Mr. S. M. Charkraborty
assisted by Learned Counsel Mrs. P. Chakraborty for the
appellants and also heard Learned Senior Counsel Mr. P. Roy
Barman assisted by Learned Counsel Mr. Samarjit
Page 4 of 37
Bhattacharjee and Learned Counsel Mr. Kawsik Nath for the
respondents.
3. Before coming to the conclusion, let us discuss about
the subject matter of the dispute cropped up amongst the rival
parties. The predecessor of the present appellants filed one suit
before the Court of Learned Civil Judge(Junior Div.), North
Tripura, Dharmanagar which was initially numbered as T.S.
No.41 of 2012 for a decree of perpetual injunction and later on,
the predecessor of the present appellants after withdrawing the
said suit filed another suit which was numbered as T.S. No.9 of
2013 before the Court of Learned Civil Judge(Sr. Div.), North
Tripura, Dharmanagar for declaration and for perpetual
injunction against one Shri Jayanta Debnath and Smt. Bharati
Nath and on the other hand, the defendants of that suit also
filed another suit as plaintiffs against said Swapan Debnath and
others for a decree of declaration of right, title and interest over
the suit land and for recovery of possession and the Learned
Civil Judge(Sr. Div.), North Tripura, Dharmanagar by a common
judgment dated 11.02.2016 decreed the suit bearing no.T.S.
No.9 of 2013 arising out of T.S. No.41 of 2012 in favour of the
plaintiffs of that suit but dismissed the connected suit bearing
no.T.S. No.37 of 2012 filed by the defendants(as plaintiffs)
against the plaintiffs of suit No.T.S. No.9 of 2013.
4. Now for the sake of convenience, I would like to discuss
herein below the subject matter of both the suits and the result
thereof. Initially, the plaintiffs of the suit T.S. No.9 of 2013 filed
Page 5 of 37
one suit T.S. No.41 of 2012 which was filed by one Swapan
Debnath and his brother Bijan Kumar Nath against defendant
No.1 Sri Jayanta Debnath and their sister as proforma-
defendant in the Court of Learned Civil Judge(Junior Div.),
Dharmanagar and on transfer, the suit was renumbered as T.S.
No.9 of 2013 in the Court of Learned Civil Judge(Sr. Div.),
North Tripura, Dharmanagar. In the suit i.e. T.S. No.9 of 2013,
the subject matter was that one Labangabala Devi(since dead)
was the owner of land measuring 0.98 acres of khatian No.558
apertaining to C.S. plot No.2345 and 2346 by way of purchase
from one Smt. Gita Rani Debnath W/O Late Prahallad Ch.
Debnath on the strength of registered sale deed No.1-4106
dated 15.11.2018. She also became the owner of land
measuring 0.78 acres of khatian No.558 of C.S. Plot No.2342 by
way of purchase from said Smt. Gita Rani Debnath by dint of
another registered sale deed bearing No.1-10 dated 01.01.1981
and thus she became the owner of land measuring 1.76 acres
and recorded her name in the khatian vide No.998 being finally
published under Mouza-Deocherra and she was possessing the
suit land by making homestead and digging pond with her
family members. Said Labangabala Devi died in the year 2006
and after her death, her legal heirs i.e. the plaintiff Nos.1 and 2
of the aforesaid suit No.TS No.9 of 2013 and pro-defendant
No.2 became the owners in possession of the said land and
started possessing the suit land continuously and
uninterruptedly without any obstruction from any corner. It was
Page 6 of 37
further asserted that pro-defendant No.2 was married but she
used to visit the suit land occasionally.
5. It was further asserted that on 01.08.2000 and on
05.08.2012 in the morning at about 8 a.m., the principal
defendant along with his associates entered into the suit land
and threatened the plaintiffs stating that if the suit land is sold
to any person except him then he would forcefully evict the
plaintiffs therefrom. Not only that he also resisted the plaintiffs
from ploughing/cultivating the suit land for which the plaintiffs
made objection and on that, there was an hot altercation and
the defendant attempted to assault the plaintiffs when the
neighbouring person appeared and the defendant fled away.
Thereafter, the matter was reported to the village elders and to
O/C Panisagar P.S. but no action was taken. The plaintiffs
further submitted that they have had valid right title, interest
and possession over the suit land and the defendants without
any right, title, interest tried to create disturbance in peaceful
possession of the plaintiffs of the suit land and tried to occupy
the same illegally. Hence, the suit was filed.
6. The plaintiffs further asserted that one Prahallad Ch.
Debnath and Labangabala Devi being the first party filed one
application under Section 30 of L.A. Act for reference before the
D.M. & Collector, North Tripura, Kailashahar which was
ultimately referred to the Learned L.A. Judge, North Tripura,
Dharmanagar regarding entitlement of the compensation
money for acquisition of the portion of land which was the
Page 7 of 37
purchased land of Labangabala Devi but the Learned L.A.
Judge, Dharmanagar vide judgment dated 29.04.2000 in Civil
Misc(L.A) No.36 of 1996 declared that the 2nd party
claimants(Jayanta Debnath & Ors.) are entitled to get the entire
awarded compensation money from the government since two
registered sale deeds of Labangabala Devi were void and
inoperative. Thereafter, Labangabala devi preferred an appeal
before the then Hon'ble Gauhati High Court, Agartala Bench but
the said appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution. It was
further submitted that since 01.08.2000 Labangabala Devi
started possessing her landed properties of khatian No.998
including the plaintiffs and pro-defendant No.2 adversely,
continuously and uninterruptedly. Even after the death of
Labangabala Devi on 15.03.2006 the plaintiffs and pro-
defendant No.2 were possessing the suit land adversely and
continuously till today. It was further submitted that the
plaintiffs have been possessing total landed property of 2 nd
schedule of the plaint of T.S. No.37 of 2013 since 01.08.2000
adversely, continuously and uninterruptedly within the
knowledge of the principal defendant denying his right, title and
interest of the suit land.
7. It was further submitted that the registered sale deed
No.1-5682 dated 15.06.1967 executed by Abhay Charan
Debnath in favour of Narendra Ch. Debnath is ineffective as
mutation was not done in respect of that land. It was also
submitted that the right, title, interest of the principal
Page 8 of 37
defendant in the suit land got extinguished as he did not seek
the redress before the Court within the statutory period of
limitation and as such the plaintiffs have acquired their right,
title and interest on the suit land by way of adverse possession.
But the principal defendant suppressing all those material facts
filed another suit bearing No.T.S. No.37 of 2012 with a view to
grab the suit land by misleading the court and prayed for
dismissal of suit No. TS. No.37 of 2012. In response to the
summons issued upon the defendants, the principal defendants
appeared and contested the suit by filing written statement
denying the entire assertions of the plaintiff and also submitted
that the original owner i.e. Abhay Charan Nath sold out the suit
land along with some other lands to their predecessor namely
Narendra Ch. Debnath by dint of registered sale deed bearing
No.1-5682 dated 15.06.1967 and after the death of Narendra
Ch. Debnath, his legal heirs i.e. defendant became the owner of
the purchased land of their predecessor. It was further
submitted that Labangabala Devi & her sons had been inducted
in the suit land as permissive possessor to maintain the
possession since 1979 and after that Narendra Ch. Debnath
continued to possess the suit land. Subsequently, said
Labangabala Devi manipulated papers beyond the knowledge of
the predecessor of defendant which were discovered
subsequently.
8. It was further submitted that during the process of
acquisition of the purchased land measuring 0.03 acre of C.S.
Page 9 of 37
Plot No.2391(p) of acquisition Gazettee Sl. No.7 and area 0.265
acre of old C.S. Plot No.2346(p) and 2345(p) of Gazettee Sl.
No.7(A) under khatian No.558(old) of Narendra Ch. Debnath for
setting up visibility of label crossing of railway, said Prahallad
Ch. Denath was shown as awardee of the acquired land wrongly
treating him as its owner and thereafter, one case under
Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act was cropped up between
the parties on the ground that the award ought to have been
made in favour of the legal heirs of deceased Narendra Ch.
Debnath. Said Labanga Balla Devi also contested the said case
vide No.Civil Misc.(LA) No.36 of 1996 and finally vide judgment
and award dated 29.04.2000, the award was made in favour of
defendant and others. After that, Labangabala Devi along with
Prahallad Ch. Debnath preferred an appeal against the
judgment and award of the Learned L.A. Judge, Dharmanagar,
North Tripura dated 29.04.2000 before the then Hon'ble
Gauhati High Court, Agartala Bench vide case
No.L.A.(Appeal).92 of 2000 which was later on dismissed on
15.12.2010 and thus the original award dated 29.04.2000
attained finality. It was further submitted by the defendant that
they are the absolute owners of the suit land which is the part
and parcel of the land purchased by their predecessor under old
khatian No.558. It was also contended by the defendant that
the khatian No.558 of the suit land was falsely recorded in the
name of Rup Charan Nath and Prahallad Ch. Debnath showing
them as sons of Prakash Ch. Debnath even though Rup Charan
Page 10 of 37
Nath was the brother of original owner Abhay Charan Debnath.
During the revisional survey being completed in the year 1990,
the suit land has been recorded in khatian No.477/1 dated
20.09.1990 wrongly in the name of Rup Charan Nath showing
him as son of Abhay Charan Nath instead of recording the same
in the name of Narendra Ch. Debnath while Narendra Ch.
Debnath did not take any proper care of such anomalies in the
khatian as he was out of station. According to defendant, earlier
they had no knowledge about these matters which they
discovered later on after collecting the certified copies. Moreso,
the matter regarding suit land including the purchased land of
Narendra Ch. Debnath remain subjudiced before the Hon'ble
High Court for the claim of Labanga Bala Devi in connection
with L.A. Appeal No.92 of 2000 which was ultimately dismissed
on 15.12.2010.
9. According to the defendant, the registered sale deed
No.1-4106 dated 15.12.1980 purportedly executed by Gita Rani
Debnath, W/O Late Prahallad Ch. Debnath in favour of
Labangabala Devi for land measuring 0.98 acre within the old
khatian No.558 was a concocted and fraudulent document
which the defendant would know after obtaining the certified
copy of the sale deed on 04.05.2011, that the widow of Late
Prahallad Ch. Debnath was not only his legal heir but also he
had 3 sons. Besides the registered sale deed No.1-10 dated
01.01.1981 purportedly executed by Gita Rani Debnath in
favour of Labangabala Devi for land measuring 0.78 acre under
Page 11 of 37
khatian No.558(old) is also ineffective, fraudulent and collusive
which the defendant would know after obtaining a certified copy
on 03.11.2011. It was also alleged by the defendant that basing
on these fraudulent documents, Labangabala Devi procured
mutated khatian No.998 in her name fraudulently in respect of
land measuring 1.69 acre within the land of first schedule of the
suit land and the copy of the khatian was obtained on
11.08.2011. It was further submitted that the previous seller
and purchaser of the suit land were well aware about the
adjudication declaring the fact that Prahallad Ch. Debnath had
no title or right over the suit land and inspite of that Gita Rani
Nath and Labangabala Devi fraudulently created those sale
deeds even though the predecessor of plaintiffs inducted
Labangabala Devi and her sons on the suit land as permissive
occupiers/possessor. It was further pleaded that Labangabala
Devi did not include into her two sale deeds the old C.S. Plot
No.2341 against which she was subsequently shown as
permissive occupier in R.S. khatian being prepared in the name
of Rup Charan Nath. Thus, by the written statement, the
contesting defendants prayed for dismissal of the suit with
costs.
10. Now let us discuss about the subject matter of the case
filed which was numbered as T.S. No.37 of 2012. The
background of the case of the plaintiffs in T.S. No.37 of 2012 is
that one Abhay Charan Nath of Deochara was the original
owner and possessor of khash jote No.160 measuring total 2.43
Page 12 of 37
acres appertaining to present khatian No.477/1 and he sold out
some landed property in favour of Prahallad Ch. Debnath by
executing some instrument but owing to some mistake said
Prahalad Ch. Debnath received back his consideration money by
dint of Money Suit No.37 of 1964 and restored the purchased
land to the original owner Abhay Charan Debnath. Thereafter,
Abhay Charan Denath filed a suit bearing No.T.S.41 of 1996 in
the Court of Learned Munsiff, Dharmanagar against the
Prahallad Ch. Debnath with a view to restore his clear title in
respect of the land under Jote No.160 including the first
schedule suit land since the name of Prahallad Ch. Debnath was
recorded in the khatian of Jote No.160. Abhay Charan Nath
sought for declaration of his jote right over the suit land of jote
No.160 and 112 along with declaration of some sale deeds to be
void and correction of record on the ground that jote
khatian(old) No.558 comprising of the first schedule suit land
with some other land was wrongly prepared in the name of
Prahallad Ch. Debnath and one stranger Rup Charan Nath as his
brother on 06.12.1965 and secondly Prahallad Ch. Nath and
Rup Charan Nath had no right, title, interest or possession over
the land of Jote Khatian No.558 which ought to have been
prepared in the name of Abhay Charan Nath. Ultimately, the
suit of Abhay Charan Nath vide T.S. No.41 of 1966 was
declared in his favour vide judgment dated 28.02.1967 and
consequential decree was passed whereby jote right and
ownership of Abhay Charan Nath including his right of
Page 13 of 37
possession was declared with further relief of correction of
khatian in favour of his name. Rup Charan Nath was the
predecessor of pro-defendant Nos.18 to 28 who had no right,
title, interest and possession over the suit land.
11. It was the further case of the plaintiff that thereafter in
the execution of the decree Abhay Charan Nath was put into
possession of the suit land upon satisfaction of decree vide
order dated 27.12.1967 and then he continued to own and
possess the first scheduled suit land along with other lands and
thus the false entry in the name of Prahallad Ch. Debnath and
Rup Charan Nath in khatian No.558(Old) had no value.
Thereafter, said Abhay Charan Nath sold out the first schedule
suit land along with some other lands to the predecessor of the
plaintiffs namely Narendra Ch. Debnath by dint of registered
sale deed No.1-5682 dated 15.06.1967 executed by Abhay
Charan Nath and after death of Narendra Ch. Debnath, his legal
heirs i.e. the plaintiffs became the owner of the purchased lands
of their predecessor including the land as mentioned in 2nd
schedule of the plaint. It was also pleaded that Labanga Bala
Devi & her sons had been inducted in the first schedule suit
land as permissive possessors to maintain the possession since
1979 and after that Narendra Ch. Debnath continued to possess
the suit land. Later on Labangabala Devi manipulated papers
beyond the knowledge of the predecessor of plaintiffs which
were discovered subsequently.
Page 14 of 37
12. It was also submitted that during the process of
acquisition of the purchased land measuring 0.03 acre of C.S.
Plot No.2391(p) of Gazettee Sl. No.7 and area of 0.265 acre of
old C.S. plot No.2346(p) and 2345(p) of Gazettee Sl. No.7(A)
under khatian No.558(old) of Narendra Ch. Debnath for setting
up of visibility of label crossing of railway, said Prahallad Ch.
Debnath was shown as awardee of the acquired lands wrongly
treating him as its owner and then one case under Section 30 of
the L.A. Act was cropped up between the parties on the ground
that the award ought to have been made in favour of the legal
heirs of deceased Narendra Ch. Debnath. Labanga Bala Devi
contested the said case vide No. Civil Misc.(L.A.) No.36 of 1996
and finally vide judgment and award dated 29.04.2000, award
was made in favour of plaintiffs of T.S. No.37 of 2012.
Thereafter, Labangabala Devi along with Prahallad Ch. Debnath
preferred an appeal against the judgment and award of the
Learned L.A. Judge, Dharmanagar, North Tripura dated
29.04.2000 before the then Hon'ble Gauhati High Court,
Agartala Bench vide L.A. (Appeal) No.92 of 2000 which was
later on dismissed on 15.12.2010 and thus the original award
dated 29.04.2000 attained finality.
13. It was further submitted that the plaintiffs are the
absolute owners of the first schedule suit land and the 2 nd
schedule is the part of first schedule land which stands after
deducting from the concerned plot of acquisition. It was also
contended by the plaintiffs that none of the defendants or pro-
Page 15 of 37
defendants have had any title on this suit lands while the
khatian No.558 of the first schedule suit land was falsely
recorded in the name of Rup Charan Nath and Prahallad Ch.
Debnath showing them as sons of Prakash Ch. Debnath even
though Rup Charan Nath was the brother of original owner
Abhay Charan Debnath. During the revisional survey being
completed in 1990 the suit land was recorded in khatian
No.477/1 dated 20.09.1990 wrongly in the name of Rup Charan
Nath showing him as son of Abhay charan Nath instead of
recording the same in the name of the predecessor of Narendra
Ch. Debnath, the present plaintiffs while Narendra Ch. Debnath
did not take proper care of such anomalies in the khatian and
according to plaintiffs, they had no knowledge about those
anomalies and circumstances which they could know after
collecting of certified copies and also they could take step due
to pendency of case before the High Court.
14. It was further submitted that the registered sale deed
No.1-4106 dated 15.12.1980 purportedly executed by Gita Rani
Debnath in favour of Labangabala Devi for land measuring 0.98
acre within the old khatian No.558 was a fraudulent and
collusive document which could be known to him after collecting
the certified copy of the sale deed in the year 2011 and moreso,
widow of Late Prahallad Ch. Debnath was not his only legal heir
as he had 3 sons namely defendants No.4 & 5 and deceased
Govinda Debnath. Besides the registered sale deed No.1-10
daed 01.01.1981 purportedly executed by Gita Rani Debnath in
Page 16 of 37
favour of Labangabala Devi for land measuring 0.78 acres
under khatian No.558(old) is also ineffective, fraudulent and
collusive which the plaintiffs could know after obtaining the
certified copy on 03.11.2011 and both these fraudulent sale
deed relating to the first schedule suit land since during 1980
and 1981 sons of Gita Rani Debnath including deceased
Govinda Debnath were the minor legal heirs of Late Prahallad
Ch. Debnath while widow Gita Rani Debnath was not competent
to execute those sale deeds fraudulently.
15. It was further submitted that basing on these two
fraudulent deeds Labangabala Devi arranged to mutate her
name in khatian No.998 fraudulently in respect of land
measuring 1.69 acre within the land of first schedule suit land
and the copy of the khatian was obtained on 11.08.2011. It was
further averred that the previous seller and purchaser of the
suit land were well aware about the fact that Prahallad Ch.
Debnath had no title or right on the suit land and inspite of that
Gita Rani Nath and Labangabala Devi fraudulently created those
deeds and thereafter the plaintiffs sought for correction of
khatian No.998 by a petition dated 23.09.2012 under Section
95 of the TLR & LR Act, 1960. Thus, the plaintiffs prayed for
declaration of title over the suit land and for recovery of
possession. The suit was contested by the defendants No.1 & 2
by filing written statement where in they denied all the
assertions and claim of plaintiffs and further took the plea that
the suit was not maintainable as the same was barred by the
Page 17 of 37
law of limitation and lack of cause of action. It was further
submitted that the mother of the principal defendants No.1, 2 &
3 namely Labangabala Devi (since dead) during her life time
became the owner of total land measuring 1.76 acre
appertaining to C.S. Plot No.2345, 2346 and 2342 of khatian
No.558 of Mouza-Deocherra by way of purchase from one Gita
Rani Debnath W/O Prahallad Ch. Debnath vide two registered
sale deeds on 15.12.1980 and 01.01.1981 respectively.
Prahallad Ch. Debnath and Labangabala Devi being a first party
filed a case under Section 30 of L.A. Act before the then D.M &
Collector, North Tripura, Kailashahar which was later on
transferred to the Court of L.A. Judge, North Tripura,
Dharmanagar for their claim of compensation money for
acquisition of a portion of the purchased land of Labangabala
Devi vide Case No.Civil Misc.(L.A.) No.36 of 1996. In that L.A.
case, verdict was passed on 29.04.2000 wherein it was declared
that the 2nd party claimants of the L.A. case are entitled to
realize the entire awarded compensation money from the Govt.
declaring that these two registered sale deeds in the name of
Labangabala Devi were void and inoperative. It was also
pleaded by defendants that said Labangabala Devi preferred
vide L.A.(Appeal) No.92 of 2000 before the Hon'ble Gauhati
High Court, Agartala Bench being admitted on 03.07.2000.
16. It was further submitted that since 01.08.2000
Labangabala Devi started to possess the landed properties
recorded in her name under khatian No.998 along with the
Page 18 of 37
defendants adversely, continuously and uninterruptedly after
which she did not proceed with her appeal No.92 of 2000 and
subsequently the same was dismissed for non-prosecution.
After the death of Labangabala Devi on 15.03.2006, the
principal defendant No.1 to 3 since from 01.08.2000, have been
possessing the landed properties of their mother adversely. It
was pleaded that plaintiff No.1 created disturbance in the
peaceful possession of the defendants in respect of the recorded
land of khatian No.998 after which the defendants Nos.1 & 2
filed civil suit bearing No.T.S. No.41 of 2012 in the Court of
Learned Civil Judge(Jr. Div.), Dharmanagar against the plaintiff
No.1 of T.S. No.37 of 2012 Sri Jayanta Debnath seeking the
relief of perpetual injunction. It was further submitted that
landed properties of R.S. Plot No.3116 of khatian No.477/1 of
Mouja-Deocherra showing Labangabala Devi as permissive
occupier was not actually recorded under khatian No.998 and
the principal defendants have been possessing the land of R.S.
Plot No.3116 C.S. Plot No.2341 under khatian No.477/1
adversely since 01.08.2000 along with their deceased mother
Labangabala Devi during her life time. So, according to the
defendants, the name of their mother has been wrongly
reflected as permissive possessor in respect of the relevant plot
of khatian No.477/1 and the principal defendants No.1, 2 & 3
have been possessing the total landed properties measuring
2.18 acres of 2nd schedule suit land since 01.08.2000 as
adverse possessors within the knowledge of plaintiffs denying
Page 19 of 37
their right, title and interest over the land. It was further
contented that the registered sale deed No.1-5682 dated
15.06.1967 executed by Abhay Charan Debnath in favour of
Narendra Ch. Debnath was ineffective as mutation in respect of
the said purchased land could not be done and according to the
defendants, the right, title and interest of the plaintiffs in the
suit land has been extinguished since they did not seek the
redress within the period of limitation while the principal
defendants No.1, 2 & 3 have perfected their right, title and
interest on the suit land by way of adverse possession. It was
also alleged that plaintiffs being aware of the relevant facts
instituted the suit with some false assertions suppressing the
real facts with a view to mislead the Court and to grab the suit
land.
17. Upon the pleadings of the parties, Learned Trial Court
below framed the following issues in respect of suit No.T.S.
No.9 of 2013:
ISSUES
(i) Whether the suit is maintainable?
(ii) Whether the suit is barred by law of limitation?
(iii) Whether the registered sale deed vide No.1-
4106 dated 15.12.1980 purportedly executed by
Gita Rani Debnath W/O Prahallad Ch. Debnath in
favour of Labangabala Devi was illegal, fraudulent
and not binding upon Principal defendant?
(iv) Whether the registered sale deed vide No.1-10
dated 01.01.1981 purportedly executed by Gita Rani
Debnath W/O Prahallad Ch. Debnath in favour of
Labangabala Devi was illegal, fraudulent and not
binding upon Principal defendant?
(v) Whether principal defendant has got right, title
and interest over the suit land?
(vi) Whether the plaintiffs have started to possess
the suit land adversely w.e.f. 01.08.2000 against
the real owner of the suit land and acquired title on
the suit land by way of adverse possession?
Page 20 of 37
(vii) Whether plaintiffs are entitled to get the
decree of declaration that they have been
possessing the suit land adversely since
01.08.2000?
(viii) Whether plaintiffs are entitled to get the
decree of perpetual injunction against the principal
defendants and his agents in respect to the suit
land?
18. Upon the pleadings of the parties, Learned Trial Court
below also framed following issues in respect of suit No.T.S.
No.37 of 2012:
ISSUES
(i) Whether the suit is maintainable in its present
form?
(ii) Whether there is any cause of action for filing of
the instant suit?
(iii) Whether the suit is barred by Limitation or any
Act?
(iv) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to get decree
as prayed for?
(v) To what other relief/relieves the plaintiffs are
entitled to?
19. The Learned Trial Court below also after hearing framed
the following additional issues in respect of suit No.T.S. No.37
of 2012:
ADDITIONAL ISSUES
(vi) Whether plaintiffs have right, title and interest
over the suit land of Schedule-1 and Schedule-2 of
plaint?
(vii) Whether Principal Defendants No.1, 2 & 3 have
acquired right, title and interest over the suit land
by way of adverse possession?
(viii) Whether the registered sale deed No.1-5862
dated 15.06.1967 and the registered sale deed
No.1-4106 dated 15.12.1980 and the registered sale
deed No.1-10 dated 01.01.1981 are fraudulent,
illegal and void deeds?
(ix) Whether the khatian No.477/1 was wrongly
prepared in the name of Rup Charan Nath?"
20. In the trial of T.S. No.9 of 2013, the plaintiffs examined
one witness and exhibited 4 nos. of documents and those
documents were also exhibited in the analogous suit T.S. No.37
of 2012 in support of their case. On the other hand, the
Page 21 of 37
defendant No.1 examined 4 witnesses and exhibited no
documents in that suit.
Further, in the trial of suit No.T.S. No.37 of 2012, the
plaintiffs examined as many as 4 witnesses and exhibited 22
nos. of documents in support of their case but on the other
hand, the defendants examined one witness and exhibited 4
documents in the suit which were specifically marked.
Finally, after hearing both the sides and after going
through the evidence on record, Learned Trial Court below by
the judgment dated 11.02.2016 decreed the suit of the
plaintiffs in connection with case No.T.S. No.9 of 2013 but
dismissed another suit bearing No.T.S. No.37 of 2012 filed by
the plaintiffs.
21. Now, for the sake of convenience, I would like to
mention hereinbelow the operative portion of the
judgment/order of the Learned Trial Court in connection with
case No.T.S. No.9 of 2013:
Order of T.S. No.09 of 2013
(arising out of T.S. 41 of 2012)
[65] In the result, it is hereby held that the
plaintiffs have succeeded to establish the cause of
action for this suit against defendant No.1 and the
suit is allowed and decreed with cost with a
declaration that plaintiffs & Pro-defendant No.2 of
T.S. 09 of 2013 have been possessing the suit land
since 01.08.2000 by way of adverse possession for a
period of 12 years and the right, title and interest of
defendant No.1 on the suit land extinguished.
[66] Defendant No.1 and his men or agents are
perpetually restrained from entering into the suit
land or disturbing the peaceful possession of
plaintiffs and pro-defendant No.2 over the suit land.
[67] Prepare decree accordingly and place it before
me for signing within 14 days.
[68] The suit is thus disposed of on contest.
Page 22 of 37
[69] Make necessary entry in the relevant Trial
Register. The record shall be consigned to the
Record Room after due compliance.
and also for the sake of convenience, I would like to refer
hereinbelow the operative portion of the judgment/order dated
11.02.2016 passed by the Learned Trial Court below in
connection with T.S. No.37 of 2012:
Order of T.S. 37 of 2012
[70] In the result, it is hereby held that the
plaintiffs have not succeeded to establish the cause
of action for this suit against defendants and the
suit is not allowed for being non-maintainable.
Accordingly this suit stands dismissed with cost.
[71] Plaintiffs are not entitled to get the declaration
of their right, title and interest over the second
schedule suit land of T.S. 37 of 2012. Plaintiffs are
also not entitled to get recovery of vacant
possession of the second schedule suit land evicting
the defendants No.1, 2 & 3 therefrom or any mesne
profit arising out of the suit land.
[72] Prepare decree accordingly and place it before
me for signing within 14 days.
[73] The suit is thus disposed of on contest.
[74] Make necessary entry in the relevant Trial
Register. The record shall be consigned to the
Record Room after due compliance.
22. Challenging these judgment, both the rival parties
preferred appeal before the Court of Learned District Judge,
North Tripura, Dharmanagar and accordingly, those cases were
registered before the Court of Learned District Judge as T.A.
No.11 of 2016 and T.A. No.12 of 2016 and after elaborate
hearing of argument of both the sides, Learned 1st Appellate
Court by judgment dated 07.06.2018 reversed the finding of
Learned Trial Court in respect of T.S. No.9 of 2013 and
dismissed the suit which was allowed by the Learned Trial court
and also by the said judgment decreed the suit bearing No.T.S.
No.37 of 2012 which was dismissed by the Learned Trial Court.
For the sake of convenience, the operative portion of
Page 23 of 37
judgment/order dated 07.06.2018 of both the appeals passed
by Learned 1st Appellate Court runs as follows:
ORDER
[16] In the result, both the appeals are allowed on
contest. The common judgment and decree dated
11.02.2016 and 23.02.2016 respectively passed by
Ld. Civil Judge(Senior Division), Dharmanagar,
North Tripura in Title Suit No.09 of 2013 and Title
Suit no.37 of 2012 whereby and where under Ld.
Trial court has decreed Title Suit No. 09 of 2013 and
dismissed Title Suit No.37 of 2012 on contest is
hereby set aside.
[17] The right, title and interest over the suit land,
described in the second schedule of the plaint of TS
37 of 2012 is hereby declared in favour of plaintiffs
of TS 37 of 2012 and they are also entitled to
recover the possession of the suit land by evicting
defendant no.1, 2 and 3 of TS 37 of 2012 and their
men and agents therefrom by demolition and
removal of all obstruction with their cost.
[18] Prepare decree accordingly. Send back the L. C.
Record along with a copy of this judgment.
Challenging that judgment of the Learned 1st Appellate
Court preferred under Section 96 of CPC, the present appellants
have preferred this appeal before the High Court.
23. Before the High Court, by order dated 21.02.2023, the
following substantial question of law was framed:
"Whether the judgment of the first appellate court
is perverse in view of the fact that the learned first
appellate court did not consider the pleadings as
well as evidence surface during the course of trial?"
24. At the time of hearing of argument, Learned Senior
Counsel, Mr. S. M. Chakraborty appearing for the appellants
submitted before the Court that the Learned Trial Court below
in delivering the judgment of case No.T.S. No.9 of 2013 rightly
decided the issues in favour of the appellants and came to the
observation that the plaintiffs of the said suit along with pro-
defendant No.2 have acquired right of adverse possession over
the suit land since 01.08.2000 and accordingly decreed the suit.
But the Learned 1st Appellate Court without considering the long
possession of the plaintiffs of that suit i.e. the appellants herein
and without considering the evidence on record reversed the
finding of Learned Trial Court and passed an erroneous
judgment which cannot be sustained in the eye of law and
urged for setting aside the judgment of the Learned 1 st
Appellate Court. Learned Senior Counsel, Mr. S. M. Chakraborty
further submitted that after the judgment of the Learned L.A.
Judge, Dharmanagar as discussed earlier, the present
appellants have acquired right of adverse possession over the
suit land with effect from 01.08.2000 but the Learned 1 st
Appellate Court at the time of delivery of judgment did not
consider the evidence on record of the appellants rather relied
upon the judgment of the land acquisition proceeding delivered
by Learned L.A. Judge which also does not attract the suit land.
25. Further Learned Senior Counsel Mr. S. M. Chakraborty
also submitted that Learned Trial Court below after elaborate
discussions of the evidence on record came to the observation
that the plaintiffs of that suit i.e. the present appellants herein
have acquired right, title, interest over the suit land by way of
adverse possession but the Learned 1st Appellate Court ignoring
the fact of possession reversed the finding of the Learned Trial
Court.
Learned Senior Counsel also submitted that the
contesting defendants of that suit i.e. the respondents herein
could not adduce any rebuttable evidence on record to
disbelieve the case of the appellants herein but the Learned 1 st
Appellate Court did not consider the same and delivered the
judgment ignoring the factual aspects and reversed the finding
of Learned Trial Court for which he urged for allowing this
appeal by setting aside the judgment of the Learned 1st
Appellate Court and to upheld the judgment of the Learned Trial
Court in the aforenoted case i.e. T.S. No.9 of 2013. It was
further submitted that Learned L.A. Judge did not decide the
title of the parties and on the basis of that judgment there was
no scope for the 1st Appellate Court to decide the appeal. It was
further submitted that suit land was all along under possession
of the appellants but the predecessor of the respondents did not
take any step for recovery of the suit land thus extinguished his
right as prescribed under Section 27 of the Limitation Act.
26. In support of his contention, Learned Senior Counsel for
the appellant Mr. S. M. Chakraborty relied upon the judgment of
High Court of Tripura in Laxmi Patari(Datta) and Ors. v.
Bibha Datta and Ors. bearing case no. RSA No.46 of 2006
dated 30.09.2015 reported in (2016) 2 TLR 1055 wherein in
para No.17, this High Court observed as under:
"17. In Amrendra Pratap Singh v. Tej Bahadur
Prajapati, [(2004) 10 SCC 65], the Apex Court held
as follows:-
"22. Every possession is not, in law, adverse
possession. Under article 65 of the Limitation
Act, 1963, a suit for possession of immovable
property or any interest therein based on title
can be instituted within a period of twelve
years calculated from the date when the
possession of the defendant becomes adverse
to the plaintiff. By virtue of Section 27 of the
Limitation Act, on the determination of the
period limited by the Act to any person for
instituting a suit for possession of any
property, his right to such property stands
extinguished.
The process of acquisition of title by adverse
possession springs into action essentially by
default or inaction of the owner. A person,
though having no right to enter into
possession of the property of someone else,
does so and continues in possession setting
up title in himself and adversely to the title of
the owner, commences prescribing title on to
himself and such prescription having
continued for a period of twelve years, he
acquires title not on his own but on account
of the default or inaction on the part of the
real owner, which stretched over a period of
twelve years, results in extinguishing of the
latters title. It is that extinguished title of the
real owner which comes to vest in the
wrongdoer. The law does not intend to confer
any premium on the wrongdoing of a person
in wrongful possession; it pronounces the
penalty of extinction of title on the person
who though entitled to assert his right and
remove the wrongdoer and re-enter into
possession, has defaulted and remained
inactive for a period of twelve years, which
the law considers reasonable for attracting
the said penalty. Inaction for a period of
twelve years is treated by the doctrine of
adverse possession as evidence of the loss of
desire on the part of the rightful owner to
assert his ownership and reclaim possession.
23. The nature of the property, the nature of
title vesting in the rightful owner, the kind of
possession which the adverse possessor is
exercising, are all relevant factors which
enter into consideration for attracting
applicability of the doctrine of adverse
possession. The right in the property ought to
be one which is alienable and is capable of
being acquired by the competitor. Adverse
possession operates on an alienable right.
The right stands alienated by operation of
law, for it was capable of being alienated
voluntarily and is sought to be recognised by
the doctrine of adverse possession as having
been alienated involuntarily, by default and
inaction on the part of the rightful claimant,
who knows actually or constructively of the
wrongful acts of the competitor and yet sits
idle. Such inaction or default in taking care of
one's own rights over property is also capable
of being called a manner of "dealing" with
one's property which results in extinguishing
one's title in property and vesting the same in
the wrongdoer in possession of property and
thus amounts to "transfer of immovable
property" in the wider sense assignable in the
context of social welfare legislation enacted
with the object of protecting a weaker
section.""
Relying upon the same, Learned Senior Counsel for the
appellants submitted that although the respondents claimed
that they purchased the suit land but they did not take any step
for recovery of possession within time thus their rights have
been extinguished under Section 27 of the Limitation Act and
furthermore, after the judgment of the Learned District Court,
North Tripura, Dharmanagar in L.A. proceeding with effect from
01.08.2000, the possession of the appellants have become
adverse to the respondents/defendants and thus the appellants
have acquired right, title, interest by way of adverse possession
over the suit land.
27. It was further submitted by Learned Senior Counsel
that the suit land was all along under the peaceful possession of
one Labangabala Devi, the predecessor of the appellants and
after her death, the appellants were/are in possession of the
suit land and the contesting respondents i.e. the defendants of
the original suit have had no right, title, interest or possession
at any point of time over the suit land. So, the story of
possession as projected by them was nothing but a false and
fabricated story and relying upon the said judgment finally
Learned Senior Counsel for the appellants submitted that the
Learned 1st Appellate Court could not consider the factual
aspects and passed an erroneous judgment for which he urged
for allowing the appeal by setting aside the judgment of the
Learned 1st Appellate Court.
28. On the other hand, Learned Senior Counsel Mr. P. Roy
Barman assisted by Learned Counsel Mr. Samarjit
Bhattacharjee and Learned Counsel Mr. Kawsik Nath first of all
drawn the attention of the Court that the appellants have not
come before the Court with clean hands. According to Learned
Senior Counsel, initially the appellants filed a suit which was
registered as T.S. No.41 of 2012 claiming title over the suit land
by one Labangabala Devi i.e. the predecessor of the appellants
but later on, when she could realize that they have got no valid
title over the suit land, took the plea of adverse possession
without any basis then they converted their suit claiming
adverse possession over the suit land by way of amending the
plaint. It was further submitted that in the plaint, there was no
plea of adverse possession by the present appellants or their
predecessor and furthermore, in the L.A. proceeding before the
Court of Learned District Judge, it was observed by Learned
L.A. Judge, North Tripura, Dharmanagar that the title deeds on
the basis of which, said Labangabala Devi claimed title over the
suit land were found to be manufactured and fabricated and
before the Learned Court also, the present appellants could not
produce any convincing oral/documentary evidence on record to
substantiate that the appellants have acquired right, title,
interest over the suit land by way of adverse possession and
furthermore, Learned Senior Counsel drawn the attention of this
Court that from the evidence of PW-1 during his cross-
examination, it is crystal clear that the said witness very
specifically stated the following words in his deposition:
"I do not know the original owner of the suit land
against whom we claimed adverse possession. We
did not file any khatian so as to show that our
possession on the suit land has been recorded as
adverse possessor."
29. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that to prove
the plea of adverse possession, the plaintiff of a case should
prove the following factors:
1. The plaintiff must plead and prove that he was
claiming possession adverse to the true owner.
2. The plaintiff must plead and establish that the
factum of his long and continuous possession was
known to the true owner.
3. The plaintiff also must plead and establish when he
came into possession and the plaintiff must establish
his possession was open and undisturbed.
Referring the aforesaid points and also the evidence of
PW-1 during his cross-examination, Learned Senior Counsel
drawn the attention of the Court that the said witness who is
one of the party to the suit specifically stated that he was
unable to say the name of the original owner against whom
they claimed adverse possession over the suit land and there
was no evidence on record that the possession was found to be
open and undisturbed and referring the para nos.36, 37, 38 and
39 of the judgment of Learned Trial Court, Learned Senior
Counsel submitted that from the contents of the judgment, it
was also clear that initially it was the case of the plaintiffs that
their predecessor Labangabala Devi purchased the suit land by
strength of registered deeds and accordingly, she got the land
recorded in her name but during L.A. proceeding, it was clearly
established before the L.A. Judge that those documents were
manufactured one and on the basis of those documents, said
Labangabala Devi could not accrue any valid right, title, interest
over the suit land and when that story was found to be baseless
then the present appellants took the plea of right of adverse
possession but the Learned Trial Court ignoring all these
aspects delivered the judgment in favour of the appellants
which the Learned 1st Appellate Court after considering
everything has reversed the finding of the Learned Trial Court.
Rather Learned 1st Appellate Court based upon the
oral/documentary evidence on record of the respondents
decreed the suit in favour of the present respondents of the suit
for which according to Learned Senior Counsel, the judgment of
the Learned 1st Appellate Court was well reasoned and there is
no scope to interfere with the judgment delivered by the
Learned 1st Appellate Court and urged for dismissal of this
appeal with costs.
30. I have heard detailed argument of both the sides and
gone through the records of the Learned Courts below. It is the
admitted position that initially the present appellants took the
plea that their predecessor Labangabala Devi purchased the suit
land on the basis of registered deeds but those registered deeds
were found to be manufactured one in the L.A. proceeding then
the present appellants took the plea of right of adverse
possession with effect from 01.08.2000 and filed the suit
seeking injunction simplicitor with the plea of adverse
possession. Learned 1st Appellate Court at the time of delivery
of judgment elaborately discussed all the aspects and came to
the observation that one Prahallad Ch. Debnath was shown as
awardee of the acquired land wrongly and then one case under
Section 30 of the L.A. Act was cropped up between the rival
parties on the ground that the award ought to have been made
in favour of the legal heirs of deceased Narendra Ch. Debnath
i.e. the present respondents herein. In the said proceeding,
Labangabala Devi contested and after hearing, judgment/award
was passed on 29.04.2000 in favour of legal heirs of deceased
Narendra Ch. Debnath i.e. the present respondents. After that,
Labangabala Devi with said Prahallad Ch. Debnath preferred an
appeal against the judgment and award of L.A. Judge,
Dharmanagar, North Tripura dated 29.04.2000 before the then
Hon'ble Gauhati High Court, Agartala Bench vide L.A. case
no.L.A. Appeal No.92 of 2000 which was dismissed for non-
prosecution on 15.12.2010 for which according to Learned 1st
Appellate Court there was continuation of possession over the
suit land upto 15.12.2010 by the contesting respondents.
Learned 1st Appellate Court also came to the view that when the
possession became adverse if the true owner does not sue the
adverse possessor for recovery of possession of the immovable
property on interest based on title, his right to property
extinguishes after 12 years but in the given case, there was
continuation of suits over the possession till 15.12.2000.
31. Moreso, the legal heirs of Narendra Ch. Debnath i.e. the
present respondents herein filed a petition under Section 95 of
TLR & LR Act in the year 2012 for correction of record of rights
in their favour which reveals from Ext.22. So, according to
Learned 1st Appellate Court, the claim of adverse possession
over the suit land was not established. Moreover, from Ext.4,
original registered sale deed bearing No.1-5682 dated
15.06.1967 executed by one Abhay Charan Debnath(since
dead) in favour of said Narendra Ch. Debnath, clearly shows
that land of old khatian no.558 was sold to Narendra Ch.
Debnath and from Ext.17 i.e. certified copies of judgment and
award dated 29.04.2000 passed in Civil Misc.(LA) No.36 of
1966, it revealed that Learned LA Judge confirmed the
ownership of legal heirs of Narendra Ch. Debnath over the suit
land so the Learned 1st Appellate Court based upon oral
evidence came to the observation that Labangabala devi was a
permissive possessor over the suit land and thus came to the
observation that said Labangabala Devi may be evicted from
the 2nd schedule of the suit land of T.S. No.37 of 2012 and
accordingly reversed the finding of Learned Trial Court in
respect of T.S. No.9 of 2013 and also reversed the finding of
Learned Trial Court in respect of T.S. No.37 of 2012 and
decreed the suit of T.S. No.37 of 2012 in favour of the plaintiffs
of that suit i.e. the respondents herein.
32. In course of hearing, Learned Senior Counsel for the
respondent relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in
M. Radheshyamlal v. V. Sandhya and Another dated
18.03.2024 reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 318 wherein in
para Nos.11, 12, 13 and 14, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed
as under.
"11. In the case of Karnataka Board of Wakf v. Govt.
of India, in paragraph 11, this Court has laid down
the law regarding the plea of adverse possession.
Paragraph 11 reads thus:
"11. In the eye of the law, an owner would be
deemed to be in possession of a property so
long as there is no intrusion. Non-use of the
property by the owner even for a long time
won't affect his title. But the position will be
altered when another person takes
possession of the property and asserts a right
over it. Adverse possession is a hostile
possession by clearly asserting hostile title in
denial of the title of the true owner. It is a
well-settled principle that a party claiming
adverse possession must prove that his
possession is "nec vi, nec clam, nec precario",
that is, peaceful, open and continuous. The
possession must be adequate in continuity, in
publicity and in extent to show that their
possession is adverse to the true owner. It
must start with a wrongful disposition of the
rightful owner and be actual, visible,
exclusive, hostile and continued over the
statutory period. (See S.M. Karim v. Bibi
Sakina [AIR 1964 SC 1254] , Parsinni v. Sukhi
[(1993) 4 SCC 375] and D.N. Venkatarayappa
v. State of Karnataka [(1997) 7 SCC 567] .)
Physical fact of exclusive possession and the
animus possidendi to hold as owner in
exclusion to the actual owner are the most
important factors that are to be accounted in
cases of this nature. Plea of adverse
possession is not a pure question of law but a
blended one of fact and law. Therefore, a
person who claims adverse possession should
show: (a) on what date he came into
possession, (b) what was the nature of his
possession, (c) whether the factum of
possession was known to the other party, (d)
how long his possession has continued, and
(e) his possession was open and undisturbed.
A person pleading adverse possession has no
equities in his favour. Since he is trying to
defeat the rights of the true owner, it is for
him to clearly plead and establish all facts
necessary to establish his adverse
possession. [Mahesh Chand Sharma (Dr.) v.
Raj Kumari Sharma [(1996) 8 SCC 128.]"
(underline supplied)
12. Therefore, to prove the plea of adverse
possession:-
(a) The plaintiff must plead and prove that he was
claiming possession adverse to the true owner;
(b) The plaintiff must plead and establish that the
factum of his long and continuous possession was
known to the true owner;
(c) The plaintiff must also plead and establish when
he came into possession; and
(d) The plaintiff must establish that his possession
was open and undisturbed.
13. It is a settled law that by pleading adverse
possession, a party seeks to defeat the rights of the
true owner, and therefore, there is no equity in his
favour. After all, the plea is based on continuous
wrongful possession for a period of more than 12
years. Therefore, the facts constituting the
ingredients of adverse possession must be pleaded
and proved by the plaintiff.
14. Therefore, it is necessary to consider the
averments made in Original Suit No. 12091 of 2010.
A plea of adverse possession can be found in
paragraph 3 of the plaint, which reads thus:
"3. The plaintiff is for the last 45 years in
open uninterrupted and continuous
possession and enjoyment of the premises
being land and building bearing Old Door no.
14, New No. 18, Peria Neikaran Street,
Sowcarpet, Madras-600079, more fully
described in the schedule hereunder and he
has thus perfected his title by adverse
possession from before 1951, alongwith his
father, J. mangilal Radhakishen Joshi, other
members of his family. In proof thereof, the
plaintiff has filed several documents to
establish his said possession adverse to the
interests of anyone else including the
defendants. The said documents may be
treated as part and parcel hereof. Several
years prior to 1951, the said property had
been owned by on Sukri Bai who died in or
about 1947, she died leaving no issues. The
father of the plaintiff and later the plaintiff
have been paying taxes only in her name. The
mutation in the Corporation and other
registries remain unchanged.""
Relying upon the same, Learned Senior Counsel for the
respondents submitted that before the Learned Trial Court the
original plaintiffs i.e. the appellants herein could not adduce any
strong oral/documentary evidence on record to prove that they
have acquired right of adverse possession over the suit land
and furthermore from the evidence of PW-1 during his cross-
examination, it was clear that he was unaware about the
original owner of the suit land.
So, according to Learned Senior Counsel for the
respondents, there was no scope to believe the story presented
by the appellants of that suit i.e. the appellants herein and
according to Learned Senior Counsel, Learned 1st Appellate
Court after elaborate discussions of everything has rightly
reversed the finding of the Learned Trial Court and urged for
upholding the judgment of the Learned 1st Appellate Court.
Learned Senior Counsel for the respondents further
submitted that since the right, title, interest of Abhay Charan
Nath was declared by judgment dated 28.02.1967 in connection
with T.S. No.41 of 1966 and he got decree from the Court and
thereafter the decree was executed which includes the land of
the first schedule including the suit land and later on said Abhay
Charan Nath sold out the first schedule land along with some
other landed properties to the predecessor of the present
contesting respondents Narendra Ch. Debnath by registered
deed of the year 1967 and thereafter the same was inherited to
the present respondents. So, the learned 1st Appellate Court
considering all the aspects rightly decreed the suit filed by the
respondents before the Learned Trial Court which was dismissed
and there was no perversity or infirmity to that judgment.
33. Since I have already discussed the factual aspects of
both the cases in detail above and it appears to this Court that
regarding accrual of right of adverse possession over the suit
land, the appellants could not adduce any convincing
documentary evidence on record and since the Learned L.A.
Judge by judgment and award dated 29.04.2000 passed in Civil
Misc(L.A.) No.36 of 1996 clearly confirmed the ownership of the
legal heirs of Narendra Ch. Debnath over the suit land
disbelieving the title of Labangabala Devi over the suit land on
the basis of title deeds. Further after going through the
evidence on record both oral and documentary of the Learned
Trial Court below, it appears that the present appellants did not
have any valid title over the suit land nor they could establish
their right of adverse possession over the suit land with effect
from 01.08.2000 rather it appears that the respondent-
defendants have had their valid title over the suit land for which
in my considered view, the Learned 1st Appellate Court after
considering all the factual and legal aspects has rightly
delivered the judgment for which I do not find any scope to
interfere with the judgment delivered by Learned 1st Appellate
Court. The substantial question of law thus leans in favour of
the answering respondents of this appeal.
34. In the result, both the appeals filed by the appellants
stands dismissed being devoid of merit with costs. The
appellants herein are not entitled to get any relief in respect of
suit No.T.S. No.9 of 2013 and accordingly, the judgment of the
Learned Trial Court in respect of suit No. T.S. No.9 of 2013
stands dismissed confirming the order of Learned 1st Appellate
Court and the right, title, interest of the respondent-plaintiffs of
suit No.T.S. No.37 of 2012 is hereby declared reversing the
judgment of the Learned Trial Court and affirmed by the
Learned 1st Appellate Court vide judgment dated 07.06.2018 in
connection with T.A. No.11 of 2016 analogously with T.A. No.12
of 2016 and as such the respondents(the plaintiffs of suit
No.T.S. No.37 of 2012) are entitled to recover possession of the
suit land by evicting the defendants No.1, 2, 3 of T.S. No.37 of
2012 and their men and agents by way of demolition and also
after removing all obstructions therefrom with their costs.
Pending application(s), if any also stands disposed of.
Prepare decree accordingly.
Send down the LCR alongwith a copy of this judgment.
JUDGE
MOUMITA Digitally signed by
MOUMITA DATTA
DATTA Date: 2024.07.15
11:03:23 -07'00'
Deepshikha
