Back
2015 Supreme(Tri) 277
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA AGARTALA
S. TALAPATRA, J.
Chinu Rani Saha – Appellant
Versus
Pranati Shingha Bist – Respondent
R.S.A. No. 78, 80, 81, 83, 84, 85 of 2007
Decided On : 27.5.2015
For the Appellants:Mr. D. Chakraborty, Senior Advocate & Mr. P. Chakraborty, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Mr. M. Kar Bhowmik, Mr. S.M. Chakraborty, Senior Advocates, Mr. R.R. Dutta, Mr. Shankar Bhattacharjee, Mr. Raju Dutta, Ms. A. Dhar, Advocates.
Non-consideration of relevant fact and consideration of irrelevant fact would give rise to a substantial question of law.
Headnote:
None
Fact of the Case:
The original plaintiff, Capt. Quar Bahadur Singh, purchased the suit land in the suit by two registered Sale Deeds dated 24.11.1965 (Exbt. A2) and 20.04.1962 (Exbt.A 2) from the proforma respondents No. 3 to 6, who, before Tripura Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act 1960 (in short TLR & LR Act, 1960),were the Dar Talukdar (intermediary) for 20 years which would be apparent from the certified copy of the Touji (Exbt.A1). During pendency of the suit the original plaintiff, namely, Capt. Quar Bahadur Singh, transferred the entire A-Schedule- land to Sri Madhusudhan Debbarma by dint of the Sale Deed dated 18.08.72, ExbtA4 without any permission of the court. However, when the said transfer was brought to the notice of the court for the purpose of addition of Madhusudhan Debbarma, the trial court allowed such addition and thus, Madhusudhan Debbarma, was added as the plaintiff No. 2 along with the original plaintiff, Capt. Quar Bahadur Singh.
Finding of the Court:
The suit land falls under the category of Khas land of Government of Tripura and the plaintiff fails to prove his jote right on it.
Issues: Whether the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court in T.S. No. 63 of 1971 and affirmed by the First Appellate Court in T.A. No. 29 of 1992 are based on inadmissible evidence and whether the material document which was supposed to be considered by the trial Court and the First Appellate Court has been ignored and therefore, the judgment and decree are liable to be termed as perverse.
Ratio Decidendi: The finding returned by the Gauhati High Court in its judgment dated 20.01.84 delivered in Second Appeal No. 21 of 81 (Ext. B20 series) constituted the relevant fact and non-consideration thereof has rendered the finding of the first appellate court, recorded in the impugned judgment, perverse.
Final Decision: The impugned judgment is liable to be set aside and as consequence thereof the suit is also liable to be dismissed.
1. These appeals being :-
(i) RSA No. 78 of 2007 from the judgment and decree dated 07.06.2007 delivered in Title Appeal No. 29 of 1992 on affirming the judgment and decree dated 29.05.1992 delivered in Title Suit No. 63 of 1971.
(ii) RSA No. 80 of 2007 from the judgment and decree dated 07.06.2007 delivered in Title Appeal No. 31 of 1992 on affirming the judgment and decree dated 29.05.1992 delivered in Title Suit No. 67 of 1971.
(iii) RSA No. 81 of 2007 from the judgment and decree dated 07.06.2007 delivered in Title Appeal No. 27 of 1992 on affirming the judgment and decree dated 29.05.1992 delivered in Title Suit No. 40 of 1966.
(iv) RSA No. 84 of 2007, from the judgment and decree dated 07.06.2007 delivered in Title Appeal No. 32 of 1992 on affirming the judgment and decree dated 29.05.1992 delivered in Title Suit No. 65 of 1971.
(v) RSA No. 83 of 2007 from the judgment and decree dated 07.06.2007 delivered in Title Appeal No. 28 of 1992 on affirming the judgment and decree dated 29.05.1992 delivered in Title Suit No. 64 of 1971.
(vi) RSA No. 85 of 2007, from the judgment and decree dated 07.06.2007 delivered in Title Appeal No. 30 of 1992 on affirming the judgment and decree dated 29.05.1992 delivered in Title Suit No. 62 of 1971, by the Civil Judge Senior Division No. 2, West Tripura, Agartala, whereby the suit was decreed, are taken up together as the identical substantial questions of law are involved in all these appeals. More importantly the related suits and the appeals were disposed of by the common judgments passed by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court. The common judgment and decree passed in the first appeal affirming judgment and decree allowing the suit has been questioned in this cluster of appeals filed under Section 100 of the CPC.
2. At the time of admitting these appeals following substantial questions of law have been formulated by the order dated 14.02.2012:
(i) Whether the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court in T.S. No. 63 of 1971 and affirmed by the First Appellate Court in T.A. No. 29 of 1992 are based on inadmissible evidence and whether the material document which was supposed to be considered by the trial Court and the First Appellate Court has been ignored and therefore, the judgment and decree are liable to be termed as perverse.
(ii) Any other issue may be formulated in course of hearing if found necessary.
In all these appeals the same substantial questions of law has been formulated but in the relevant part the number of the Title Suit and the First Appeal got changed as required.
3. Even though liberty was given to the appellants to raise any other substantial question of law, if found material for hearing the appeal but the appellant did not raise any additional substantial questions of law.
4. For laying the perspective and also for appreciating the substantial questions of law, the essential fact may be laid at the outset.
According to the original plaintiff, namely, Capt. Quar Bahadur Singh, he purchased the ASchedule- land in the suit by two (2) registered Sale Deeds dated 24.11.1965 (Exbt. A2) and 20.04.1962 (Exbt.A 2) from the proforma respondents No. 3 to 6, who, before Tripura Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act 1960 (in short TLR & LR Act, 1960),were the Dar Talukdar (intermediary) for 20 years which would be apparent from the certified copy of the Touji (Exbt.A1). During pendency of the suit the original plaintiff, namely, Capt. Quar Bahadur Singh, transferred the entire ASchedule- land to Sri Madhusudhan Debbarma by dint of the Sale Deed dated 18.08.72, ExbtA4 without any permission of the court. However, when the said transfer was brought to the notice of the court for the purpose of addition of Madhusudhan Debbarma, the trial court allowed such addition and thus, Madhusudhan Debbarma, was added as the plaintiff No. 2 along with the original plaintiff, Capt. Quar Bahadur Singh.
5. Even after TLR & LR Act came into operation, the name of Rani Ujjala Devi an
