This is a second appeal filed by the defendant under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure Code against the judgment/decree dated 12.3.2003 passed by Civil Judge (Sr. Division) Karimganj in Title Appeal No.19/1998 which in turn arise out of judgment/decree dated 8.6.1998 passed by Civil Judge (Jr. Division) No.2, Karimganj in Title Suit No.119/94. By impugned judgment/decree, the first appellate court allowed the plaintiff’s appeal and while setting aside the judgment/decree passed by the trial court decreed the plaintiff’s suit against the defendant in relation to the suit property. So the question, which arises for consideration in this appeal, is whether first appellate court was justified in allowing plaintiff’s appeal and in turn was justified in decreeing his suit against the defendant? This second appeal was admitted for final hearing on following substantial question of law:

“1. Whether the learned lower appellate court erred in law in declaring the title of the plaintiff over the suit land on the basis of Ext.2 which is a katcha patta, and the Ext. 4 a khuliyat, which does not convey any title whatsoever?

2. Whether the learned court below erred in law in declaring title of the plaintiff over the suit land on the basis of Kabuliyat executed by the plaintiff in favour of the King of Tripura although there is no iota of evidence to the effect that the suit land was ever a part of Tripura estate and that the same was covered by Article III of the Annexation Treaty dated 9.9.1949 whereby the estate of Tripura merged into the dominion of India?

3. Whether the impugned lower appellate judgment and decree of reversal are vitiated due to non-consideration of Ext. A, B and C?”

2. Facts of the case are short. They however need mention in brief herein below.

The appellant is the defendant whereas the respondent is the plaintiff. The respondent (plaintiff) filed a suit against the appellant (defendant) out of which this second appeal arises for a declaration that he is the owner of the suit land measuring 7 Kedar 3 Poa 3 jasti covered by Khatian No.37 Dag No.197 and present patta No.16 Dag No.98 under Patharkandi P/S, Porgona Pratapghar Mouza Dhalia Hill 1st Block, for confirmation of his possession over the suit land and for injunction restraining the appellant from interfering in any manner in his possession over the suit land. The respondent claimed his title over the suit land on the strength of a registered document executed in his favour by Mirasdar kirit Bikram Deb Manikya Bahadur of Tripura called as “kabuliyat no 3756 dt 31.12.1962 “It was alleged that on acquiring the ownership rights, he also paid revenue rent to the State after acquisition of zamindari by the Govt, and had been paying revenue regularly for the land in suit. It was alleged that since defendant without having any right, title and interest in the suit land attempted to interfere in respondent’s peaceful possession and tried to assert his rights, and hence a cloud has been cast on his title over the suit land to file a suit and seek a declaration of his ownership rights over the suit land. The appellant denied the respondent’s right, title and interest on the suit land and set up a title in him through their predecessor. However, he did not file any document of title standing in the name of his predecessor or in his name. He also raised an objection that suit is not tenable for want of necessary party i.e state. Parties adduced evidence in support of their case. The respondent proved his title whereas the appellant only adduced oral evidence but failed to file any documentary evidence to prove his title.

3. The trial court dismissed the suit. The respondent (plaintiff) felt aggrieved of dismissal of his suit, filed first appeal out of which this second appeal arises. By impugned judgment/decree, the first appellate court allowed respondent’s (plaintiff’s) appeal and while setting aside the judgment/decree of the trial court decreed the plaintiff’s suit giv

Click Here to Read the rest of this document