Akkal Ali vs Gulabun Nessa
2025 Latest Caselaw 32 Tri

Tripura High Court

Akkal Ali vs Gulabun Nessa on 7 May, 2025

                             Page 1 of 4

                     HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                           AGARTALA
                       RSA No. 07 of 2025

     Akkal Ali,
     S/o. Late Anar Ali
     of Barkhala, P.S. Kailashahar,
     Dist. Unakoti Tripura.

                                                    .....Appellant(s).

                                      Versus

  1. Gulabun Nessa,
     D/o. Late Ajib Ullah,

  2. Achaddar Ali,
     S/o. Late Ajib Ullah,

  3. Masaddar Ali,
     S/o. Late Ajib Ullah,

  4. Manar Ali,
     S/o. Late Ajib Ullah,

  5. Kanar Ali,
     S/o. Late Ajib Ullah,

  6. Rakibun Nessa,
     D/o. Late Ajib Ullah,

  7. Sahid Ali,
     S/o. Late Ajib Ullah,

  8. Majid Ali,
     S/o. Late Ajib Ullah,

     All the respondent Nos. 1 to 8 are resident of
     Village-Barkhala, P.O. Ichabpur, P.S. Kailashahar,
     Dist. Unakoti Tripura, PIN-799277.

                                                ......Respondent(s).


For Petitioner (s)           :        Mr. Himangshu Deb, Advocate.
For Respondent(s)            :        None.
Date of Hearing
& Delivery of judgment       :        07.05.2025
Whether fit for reporting    :        No
                                   Page 2 of 4



      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. DATTA PURKAYASTHA

               JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)

            Heard      Mr.     Himangshu            Deb,   learned       counsel

appearing for the appellant.

[2]         The gist of the case of the plaintiff-respondents is

that their predecessor was the owner of 'A' scheduled land

comprising 1.55 acres and after his death the plaintiffs inherited

the same. Meanwhile, on 10.03.2017 the appellant-defendant

forcibly dispossessed them from a portion of the 'A' schedule

land measuring 0.15 acre which is described specifically in 'B'

scheduled land of the plaint. According to the plaintiffs, the

defendant also constructed huts therein after such

dispossession. With such grievances, the plaintiffs filed suit for

declaration of right, title and interest and recovery of

possession.

[3] Ld. Trial Court granted the decree and the Ld. First

Appellate Court also affirmed the same by the impugned

judgment dated 17.12.2024 in Title Appeal No.07 of 2023

passed by Ld. District Judge, Unakoti Judicial District,

Kailashahar and challenging the said judgment and decree, the

present appeal is filed.

[4] Mr. Himangshu Deb, learned counsel strenuously

argues that the plaint itself is filled with suppression of material

facts. Actually, the defendant purchased the suit land from the

predecessor of the plaintiffs as bonafide purchaser against

payment of consideration money, but as it was an allotted land

and no permission was obtained from the concerned District

Magistrate & Collector, the deed of purchase could not be

registered. However, two numbers of unregistered deeds of

such purchase were duly proved into evidence during trial. But,

Ld. Trial Court as well as Ld. First Appellate Court failed to

consider the same and arrived at a per se wrong decision.

[5] The Court has considered the submission and also

has gone through the records. It appears that during trial from

the side of the plaintiffs, three witnesses were examined and

other three witnesses were also examined from the side of the

defendant and both the sides proved certain documents into

evidence. The plaintiffs proved their allotment order standing in

the name of their predecessor Ajib Ullah and his wives and

another Khatian No.129 of Mouja Ichabpur. Based on those

documents both the Courts below came to a clear finding that

the plaintiffs were able to prove the title over the 'A' schedule

land which led them to decree the suit.

[6] Ld. Trial Court as well as Ld. First Appellate Court did

not take into consideration two numbers of unregistered deeds

dated 08.08.2005 and 05.12.2005 under Exhibit 'C' and Exhibit

'D' on the ground that transfer of land by way of unregistered

deed was not sanctioned by law. On consideration of the

reasoning as put forward by the Ld. Courts below, this Court

does not find any error in disturbing such decision. However,

what is noticed is that the plaintiffs claimed their date of

dispossession to be on 10.03.2017 whereas, as per the evidence

surfaced in the records, the defendant already occupied the suit

land in the year 2005 and, therefore, there are some differences

regarding the alleged claim of date of dispossession of the

plaintiffs in contrast to the claim of the defendant of their

purchase in the year 2005.

[7] However, in view of the observation made by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in Smt. Gitarani Paul vs. Dibyendra

Kundu @ Dibyendra Kumar Kundu, AIR (1991) 1 SCC 395,

in the second appeal, the High Court cannot go into the question

of ascertaining such date of dispossession. The relevant

paragraph No.8 of said decision is extracted hereunder:

"8. In the face of clear pleadings and the evidence on record the High Court was wrong in reaching the conclusion that there was no pleadings and evidence regarding dispossession. Even otherwise in the face of the finding of the courts below that the appellant- plaintiff had proved her title it was not necessary for the High Court to go into the question of ascertaining the date of dispossession. We, therefore, do not agree with the reasoning of the High Court and set aside the same."

Considering all these aspects, this Court does not

find any substantial question of law involved in this second

appeal warranting admission thereof.

Situated thus, the second appeal is not admitted and disposed of accordingly.

Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

Communicate copy of this order to the Ld. Courts below.

JUDGE SUJAY GHOSH Digitally signed by SUJAY GHOSH Date: 2025.05.08 15:14:24 +05'30'

Riki