The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the doctrine of part performance under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act in protecting the possession of the defendants despite the non-registration of the sale deed.

JUDGMENT

1. This second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure is directed against the judgment and decree dated 28.03.2009, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Court No. 2, Agartala, West Tripura, in Title Appeal No. 51 of 2005, where-under the appeal has been dismissed and the judgment and decree dated 07.06.2003, passed by learned Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Court No. 2, Agartala, West Tripura, in Title Suit No. 34 of 2001 was affirmed.

2. By order dated 11.11.2009, the second appeal has been admitted for hearing on the following substantial questions of law:-

“A. Whether the impugned judgment and decree is perverse due to non-consideration of the judgment and decree dated 08/08/07 passed by Ld. Additional District Judge, West Tripura in TA 48/2004 on the same subject matter between the same parties as also the fact of absence of challenge to the decree of dismissal of counter-claim in T.S. 21/02?

B. Whether Ld. First Appellate Court below had jurisdiction to pass the impugned judgment and decree with findings inconsistent with and contrary to the unchallenged findings and decision in an earlier appeal i.e. F.A. No. 31 of 1992 passed by the Ld. First Appellate Court and High Court on the same subject matter between the same parties?

C. Whether two inconsistent and contradictory judgments and decrees by the same court in respect of the same matter between the same parties can prevail and if not whether the earlier one or the later one should prevail?

D. Whether the issue No. 2 framed in the suit namely, “whether the father of the plaintiff executed sale deed and handed over possession to the Defendants after receipt of Rs. 25,000”/- was res-judicata in as much as the said issue was finally decided by the Hon’ble High Court by an order dated 04/6/99 passed in FA No. 31/92 affirming the order dated 16/03/92 passed by Ld. Sub-Ordinate Judge, West Tripura, Agartala in TS 133/97 and the order dated 09/06/87 passed by the District Registrar, West Tripura, Agartala in Case No. 01/DR/83?”

E. Any other substantial questions of law which may be required for effective decision of the present appeal.

3. Heard learned Sr. counsel Mr. A.K. Bhowmik assisted by learned counsel Mr. S. Saha for the plaintiff-appellant (hereinafter mentioned as plaintiff) and learned Sr. counsel Mr. S.M. Chakraborty assisted by learned counsel Ms. B. Chakraborty for the defendant-respondents (hereinafter mentioned as defendants).

4. The appellant as plaintiff instituted Title Suit No. 34 of 2001 seeking declaration of right, title, interest and recovery of the possession of the suit land described in the schedule of the plaint and also prayed for a decree of mesne profit till recovery of khas possession.

5. The defendants contested the case by filing written statement and in addition thereto, defendant No. 1 set up a counter claim and the plaintiff filed written statement in the counter claim which was registered as T.S. 21/2002 arising out of T.S. 34 of 2001.

6. Both the suit i.e. T.S. 34 of 2001 and the counter claim T.S. 21 of 2002 were tried together and single set of evidence was recorded in connection with the case and counter case.

7. The case of the plaintiff, in short, is that his father Sakhi Charan Roy was the original owner of the suit land with building thereon and his father inducted Atish Chandra Bardhan, the predecessor of the defendants, as a tenant in the suit land with building in the year 1979 at an annual rent of `1,200/-. Sakhi Charan, father of the plaintiff executed a sale deed in favour of Atish Chandra Bardhan on 03.08.1982 (Deed written on 06.05.1982) and the deed was presented for registration in the Office of the Sub Registrar, Khowai wherein the suit land was transferred to Said Atish Chandra Bardhan, predecessor of the defendants for a consideration of ` 25000/-. But registration was refused by the Sub-Registrar, Khowai and therefore, Atish Chandra Bardhan preferred Registration Appeal No. 01/DR/83 und