Tripura High Court
Sri Rajkumar Nath @ Rajkumar Debnath ... vs Sri Durga Charan Nath on 31 January, 2025
Page 1 of 6
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
RSA No.24 of 2024
1. Sri Rajkumar Nath @ Rajkumar Debnath (60),
S/o Lt. Ramdhan Nath @ Ramdhan Debnath.
2. Sri Prajesh Nath @ Prajesh Debnath (37),
S/o Sri Rajkumar Nath @ Rajkumar Debnath.
3. Sri Rahul Nath @ Rahul Debnath (19),
S/o Sri Rajkumar Nath @ Rajkumar Debnath.
4. Sri Amitava Nath @ Amitava Debnath (38),
S/o Sri Rajkumar Nath @ Rajkumar Debnath.
5. Sri Ranjit Nath @ Ranjit Debnath (36),
S/o Sri Rajendra Nath @ Rajendra Debnath.
All are resident of Rowa (Near Rowa AWC),
Rowabazar B.O. Post Office P.S.-Panisagar,
Dist-North Tripura, PIN-799260.
......Appellant(s)
Versus
Sri Durga Charan Nath,
S/o Late Kali Charan Nath,
Rowa near Rowa AWC, Rowabazar B.O.
Post Office P.S.-Panisagar,
Dist-North Tripura, PIN-799260.
......Respondent(s)
For Appellant(s) : Mr. A. Acharjee, Advocate.
Ms. M. Basu, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. S. Bhattacharjee, Advocate.
Date of hearing and delivery : 31th January, 2025.
of Judgment & Order
Whether fit for reporting : NO.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. DATTA PURKAYASTHA
JUDGMENT & ORDER (Oral)
Heard Mr. A. Acharjee, learned counsel appearing for the
appellants and Mr. S. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent.
2. The claim of the plaintiff (respondent herein) is that he is
the owner of the suit land, measuring 1.30 acre as described in
schedule A of the plaint, by way of purchase from, one Sri Ranjan
Kumar Debnath and Smt. Renu Nath, by a registered sale deed No.1-
2177 dated 08.08.2022 (Exhibit-3) and the suit land after such
purchase was also mutated in his name vide Khatian No.1048.
Thereafter, on 20.12.2009, the defendants requested the plaintiff to
allow them to stay in the suit land with assurance to vacate the same
within two years. Accordingly, they were allowed to stay there. But after
expiry of said two years when they were requested to vacate the same
they denied and ultimately the suit was filed. The defendants No.1 and
No.2 (Sri Rajendra Nath and Sri Rajkumar Nath) contested the case by
filing written statement, stating that originally the suit land was Khas
land and since the time of their father they were possessing total 1.69
acre of land, out of which the Government allotted 1.56 acre of land to
them leaving 0.13 acre, though they were in possession of the same
and till filing of the suit they were maintaining possession in said 0.13
acre of land. According to them, said 0.13 acre of land is the suit land
mentioned under schedule I and II of which the recovery of possession
has been sought for by the plaintiff.
3. Learned Trial Court dismissed the suit mainly on the ground
that due to absence of boundary description of the schedule A land, the
plaintiff failed to prove entitlement to recover possession of suit land
described in schedule I and II being part of schedule A land.
4. However, Learned First Appellate Court after setting aside
the said judgment of the Learned Trial Court decreed the suit with
exhaustive discussions on the evidences as placed in the record by the
parties. According to Learned First Appellate court, as per the Order VII
Rule 3 of CPC it is sufficient if the plaint contains a description of the
property sufficient to identify it, either by way of boundaries or by the
numbers as mentioned in the record of settlement or survey. Learned
First Appellate Court also observed that there was no dispute raised by
the defendants about the identity of the suit land and schedule A land
could be identified by only plot number without any boundary
description. The plea of adverse possession by the defendants was
turned down by both the Learned First Appellate Court and also by the
Learned Trial Court.
5. During the hearing before this Court, Mr. Acharjee, learned
counsel submits that he is also not pressing the plea of adverse
possession before this Court. Regarding the derivation of ownership
over the suit land by the vendors of the plaintiff, the Learned First
Appellate Court relied on Exhibit-5, i.e., old Khatian No.1048 and it was
observed that the predecessor of vendors of the plaintiff, namely, one
Rameshwar Debnath was an allottee of the suit land. As per the said
Khatian, such allotment was given in the Bengali year 1385
(corresponding to English calendar 1978-1979). Therefore, the vendors
had the transferable right in the suit land after 10 years of such
issuance of allotment and with such observations finally decreed the
suit.
6. Mr. Acharjee, learned counsel also argues that intentionally
the plaintiff did not mention the boundary description of the schedule A
suit land in the plaint and only mentioned the survey plot numbers with
an intention to lodge a false claim, in schedule I and II of the suit land
of which the recovery of possession has been sought for. In fact the
plaintiff has mentioned both the survey plot numbers as well as the
boundary description of schedule I and II of the suit property. Learned
counsel also took the notice of the Court to paragraph No.21 of the
written statement submitted by the contesting defendants and submits
that the wrong description boundary was already challenged in an
indirect manner in the pleading challenging the identification of the suit
land, more particularly schedule I and II of the suit land. But Learned
First Appellate Court lost sight of the same.
7. Mr. Acharjee, learned counsel also raises another point that
the original land was Government Khas land allotted to the predecessor
of vendors of the plaintiff, therefore, the plaintiff did not derive any title
therein inasmuch as the vendee cannot derive any better title than what
wa enjoyed by his vendors. But Learned First Appellate Court while
decreeing the suit has also missed that aspect. Learned counsel,
therefore, prays for admitting the appeal on both the grounds
formulating substantial question of law. Mr. Acharjee, learned counsel
also refers to a decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in a case in
between Laxman Singh v. Jagannath, reported in 1999 SCC Online
MP 271, and relevant paragraph No.10 as relied on by learned counsel
is reproduced below :
"The purpose of Order 7, Rule 3 of the Code is that
unless the plaintiff indicates the identity of the property
claimed by him either by means of boundaries or by
means of map as required by Order 7, Rule 3 of the Code,
it would be difficult for the Court to find whether the
plaintiff has title to the property claimed and whether
any encroachment or dispossession has been made by
the defendant. Thus the duty of the party is to give
description sufficient to identify the property in dispute.
If such decree is passed, it shall be unworkable. The
Court can only pass a decree which can be executed
under Order 21 of the Code."
8. Mr. S. Bhattacherjee, learned counsel appearing for the
plaintiff, however opposes the prayer, stating that there is no
substantial question of law involved in this appeal. Moreover, the decree
of the Learned First Appellate Court is already executed.
9. Considered the rival contention of the parties and
meticulously perused the record. As per the Order VII Rule 3 of CPC,
the suit land can be described either by boundary description or by
survey plot numbers but the condition is that land should be properly
identifiable. In the instant case, in the written statement, as observed
by the Learned First Appellate Court, no plea was raised by the
contesting defendants about any wrong description of the suit land,
rather in paragraph No.21 of the written statement, some challenges
were made regarding mentioning of wrong measurements of huts
mentioned in schedule I and II of the suit land. In such a situation, the
appellants cannot be allowed to raise any such plea in the second
appeal. Regarding the second point raised by the appellants regarding
allottee land is concerned, the Learned First Appellate Court has come
to the definite findings basing on Exhibit-5, that the allotment was
granted to the predecessors of the vendors of the plaintiff before The
Tripura Land Revenue and Land Reforms (Allotment of Land) Rules,
1980 came into force and therefore, after expiry of 10 years from the
date when the allotment was granted, the allottee derived transferable
right over the land, accordingly, thereafter his successors transferred
the land to the plaintiff. In that backdrop, no perversity is found in the
decision of the Learned First Appellate Court which requires admission
of the second appeal on any substantial question of law. As a result, the
appeal being devoid of any substantial question of law involved therein
is not admitted.
The appeal is accordingly disposed of.
Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
JUDGE
SATABDI Digitally signed by
SATABDI DUTTA
DUTTA Date: 2025.02.04
16:26:33 +05'30'
Dinashree
