Tripura High Court
Ms. Suphi Bibi vs Smt. Roshana Bibi on 21 May, 2024
Page 1 of 5
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
RSA. No. 17 of 2024
1. Ms. Suphi Bibi,
Aged 54 years,
Wife of late Kanu Miah.
2. Md. Ranjit Miah,
Aged 43 years,
Son of late Kanu Miah.
3. Ms. Sima Bibi,
Aged 42 years,
Daughter of late Kanu Miah
and wife of Md. Alamgir Miah.
4. Ms. Ruma Bibi,
Aged 37 years,
Daughter of late Kanu Miah.
-all are resident of village: Rajarbag, Muslim Para,
PS & PO: Radhakishorepur-799120, District: Gomati, Tripura.
......Appellant(s)
Versus
Smt. Roshana Bibi,
Wife of late Khalek Miah,
Resident of Village: Rajarbag,
PS & PO: Radhakishorepur-799120, District: Gomati, Tripura.
......Respondent(s)
For Appellant(s) : Mr. D. K. Daschaudhury, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : None.
Fit for reporting : NO.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. DATTA PURKAYASTHA
JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL)
21.05.2024
Heard Mr. D. K. Daschaudhury, learned counsel
appearing for the appellants.
[2] The present appellants are the legal representatives of
late Kanu Miah who was the sole defendant in the Trial Court. The
present respondent was the plaintiff who filed the suit seeking
declaration of her right, title & interest over the suit land and for
recovery of possession.
[3] According to the plaintiff, she purchased the suit plots
i.e. RS Plots Nos.1027 (part) and 1035 (part) of area 3 karas from
the original owner Sri Nanigopal Datta and his other co-sharers by
registered sale deed No.1-1132 dated 24.06.2009. Said Nanigopal
Datta executed the sale deed for himself and also for his other co-
sharers as their attorney. Further allegation of the plaintiff was
that on 22.10.2011 the original defendant Kanu Miah dispossessed
her from the suit land and, therefore, the suit was filed.
[4] Said late Kanu Miah i.e. predecessor of present
appellants in his written statement did not claim the suit land as of
his own, rather according to him, he purchased 0.03 acre land
from one Sima Bibi from RS Plot No.1036/5696 with certain
boundaries by a registered deed of sale bearing no.1-1700 dated
11.09.2013. According to him, his said purchased land is also not
situated adjacent to the boundary line of the land of the plaintiff
and, therefore, there was no question of any encroachment or
dispossession by him of the plaintiff from the said suit land.
[5] Both side led their evidences, both oral and
documentary, in the Trial Court and finally the suit was decreed by
the Trial Court which was affirmed by the Ld. District Judge,
Gomati District, Udaipur vide Judgment dated 23.02.2024 passed
in Title Appeal No.13 of 2020 which along with the related decree
drawn thereon are challenged in this appeal.
[6] On the prayer of the original defendant of late Kanu
Miah, one Survey Commissioner namely Mr. T.K.
Majumder,Revenue Inspector was appointed by the Ld. Trial Court
to survey the suit land and to submit the report and in turn said
Revenue Inspector along with one Tehsildar namely Sri Iswar
Chandra Debnath, submitted their report which were taken into
evidence as Exbt.C-1 and Exbt.C-1(i) after they were examined in
the Court. As per the Survey Commissioner's report the defendant
dispossessed the plaintiff from 1 kara 2 kranta and 1 dhur of land
from suit plot No.1035 based on which the Trial Court granted
decree of recovery of possession for the said area of suit land.
[7] When the Survey Commissioner's report was submitted
in the Trial Court none of the parties submitted any written
objection against the same. However, during examination both the
said Revenue Inspector and Tehsildar admitted that there was no
trained surveyor in Udaipur Sub-Division Office. Except that
sentence, there was no challenge from the side of the plaintiff or
the defendant regarding the correctness of such report submitted
by them.
[8] Mr. Daschaudhury, learned counsel with all emphasis
submits that when both the Revenue Inspector and the Tehsildar
were not acquainted with the survey work, serious error was
committed by Ld. Trial Court in engaging them in commission
work and based on such faulty reports and sketch map annexed
therewith, Ld. Trial Court has passed the decree which was further
affirmed by the Ld. First Appellate Court and same are seriously
prejudicial to the interest of the present appellants. Mr.
Daschaudhury, learned counsel also contends that based on such
faulty report now the plaintiff will try to evict the appellants from
their own land. Therefore, Mr. Daschaudhury, learned counsel
submits that substantial question of law in this appeal may be
formulated as to whether such report of Survey Commissioner
prepared by such a person having no knowledge on survey can be
relied on to determine the disputes between the parties.
[9] This Court has considered the submission of Mr.
Daschaudhury, learned counsel but what has been raised by
learned counsel is a question of fact. First of all, the appellants or
their predecessor are disclaimer on the suit plot and according to
them their purchased land is situated elsewhere and not adjacent
to the suit land. Therefore, such apprehension that based on such
commissioner's report, the plaintiff decree holder will now
dispossess the appellants from their own land is without any basis.
Decree of recovery of possession has been passed by the Trial
Court in respect of suit plot No.1035 and said plot is identifiable
basing on the revenue map and other revenue records and the
decree of recovery of possession as passed by the Ld. Trial Court
is confined only within the said plot No.1035 and no decree was
passed in respect of purchased plot of appellants i.e. plot
no.1036/5696.
[10] All these matters are appreciation of facts and not a
question of law. In Kondiba Dagadu Kadam Vs. Savitribai
Sopan Gujar & Ors, (1999) 3 SCC 722 it was observed by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court that if a question of law termed as a
substantial question stands already decided by a larger Bench of
the High Court concerned or by the Privy Council or by the Federal
Court or by the Supreme Court, its merely wrong application on
facts of the case would not be termed to be a substantial question
of law. It was also in that connection observed that the mere
appreciation of facts, the documentary evidence or the meaning of
entries and the contents of the documents cannot be held to be
raising a substantial question of law.
In view of above, it is held that there is no substantial
question of law involved in this appeal warranting admission of the
same for further hearing.
The appeal is accordingly not admitted and is disposed of.
Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
The Registry is to communicate the copy of this Order to
both Ld. First Appellant Court and Ld. Trial Court.
JUDGE
SATABDI DUTTA Digitally signed by SATABDI DUTTA
Date: 2024.05.24 13:08:18 +05'30'
Riki
