Back
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA AGARTALA
S.C. DAS, J.
Shri Ranjit Debnath and others - Appellant
Vs
Smt. Sabitri Das and others - Respondent
RSA 41 OF 2005
Decided On : 06.01.2015
EVIDENCE - LAND DISPUTE - Tripura Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act, 1960 - Section 46
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a long-fought litigation over a small plot of land between the plaintiff and the defendants. The plaintiff originally filed a suit in 1974 seeking declaration of right, title, interest, and recovery of possession of the suit land. The trial court initially decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff, but on appeal, the first appellate court remanded the case for fresh trial. The subsequent judgments and decrees led to a second appeal.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court and the appellate court arrived at a wrong finding based on the report of the Survey Commissioner. The plaintiff proved her case with documentary evidence, while the defendants failed to do so. The plaintiff was found to have the right, title, and interest over the suit land and was entitled to recovery of possession.
Issues: The substantial questions of law included the conclusion drawn by the appellate court, the basis for determining the fate of the appeal, and the jurisdiction of the appellate court to enter into questions outside the parameter of the inquiry laid down in the order of remand.
Ratio Decidendi: The trial court and the appellate court arrived at a wrong finding based on the report of the Survey Commissioner. The plaintiff proved her case with documentary evidence, while the defendants failed to do so. The plaintiff was found to have the right, title, and interest over the suit land and was entitled to recovery of possession.
Final Decision: The second appeal was allowed, and the judgments and decrees of the lower courts were set aside. The suit of the plaintiff was decreed, and the defendants were directed to hand over vacant possession to the plaintiff within three months. If the defendants failed to do so, the plaintiff would be entitled to recovery of possession in accordance with the law.
This second appeal, under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure,1908 is directed against judgment and decree dated 31.03.2005 and 05.04.2005 respectively, passed by learned Addl. District Judge (Fast-track Court), North Tripura, Kailashahar in Title Appeal No.14 of 1993 whereunder the learned Addl. District Judge upheld the judgment and decree of dismissal dated 30.08.1993 in Title Suit No. 25 of 1986, passed by learned Assistant District Judge (Civil Judge, Sr. Division), Kailashahar.
2. Heard learned counsel Ms. P. Dhar for the appellants and learned counsel Mr. H. Laskar for the respondents.
3. The second appeal has been admitted for hearing on the following substantial questions of law.
“1. Whether the conclusion drawn by the appellate court that the suit land covered by old Jote No.14 and not by old Jote No. 39 is based on no evidence?
2. Whether the appellate court can determine the fate of the appeal on the basis of sole opinions of the Survey Commissioner given in his report?
3. Whether the appellate Court has jurisdiction to enter into question, which falls outside the parameter of enquiry laid down in the order of remand?”
4. Smt. Sushama Debnath (since deceased), the predecessor of the present appellants (herein-after mentioned as plaintiff) originally instituted Title Suit No.40 of 1974 in the Court of the then Munsiff, Kailashahar on 02.09.1974 and subsequently the suit was re-numbered as T.S.25 of 1986 when it was transferred to the Court of the Assistant District Judge (Civil Judge, Sr. Division), Kailashahar, North Tripura and the suit was filed against Balaram Das (since deceased), the predecessor of the present respondent Nos.1(a) to 1(d) and the other respondents arrayed in the present appeal as defendants (herein-after mentioned as defendants) seeking declaration of right, title and interest as well as recovery of khas possession of the suit land described in the 2nd schedule of the plaint which is part of 1st schedule of the plaint and also prayed for mesne profit @ Rs.50/-.
4.1 The litigation between the parties has a checkered history that the plaintiff instituted the suit on 02.09.1974 in the Court of Munsiff, Kailashahar seeking declaration of right, title, interest and recovery of possession of the suit land described in 2nd schedule of the plaint and also for measne profit and the suit was registered as T.S.40 of 1974. Learned Munsiff, Kailashahar by judgment dated 29.04.1980, passed in T.S. 40 of 1974 decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff.
The defendants preferred first appeal against the judgment and decree dated 29.04.1980 in the Court of Subordinate Judge, Kailashahar, North Tripura which was numbered as T.A.12 of 1980 and the learned Subordinate Judge by judgment dated 30.09.1980 set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and remanded the case to the trial Court for fresh trial after framing two more issues as suggested by the appellate Court. The suit was thereafter transferred to the Court of learned Subordinate Judge, North Tripura, Kailashahar and it was renumbered as T.S. 25 of 1986 by order dated 11.08.1986 passed in the record of the suit and learned Subordinate Judge took up the trial. In course of trial as per direction of the appellate Court in T.A.12 of 1980, two more issues were framed and Survey Commissioner was appointed for local inspection of the suit land. The learned Subordinate Judge by impugned judgment and decree dated 30.08.1993 dismissed the suit of the plaintiff and thereafter the plaintiff preferred Title Appeal No.14 of 1993. The learned Addl. District Judge, North Tripura, Kailashahar by judgment and decree dated 30.06.1995 allowed the appeal and decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff.
The defendants preferred second appeal in the then Gauhati High Court, Agartala Bench, Agartala against appellate judgment and decree dated 30.06.1995 which was registered as RSA 30 of 1995 and the Hon’ble High Court by judgment dated 27.08.200
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
