Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA, AGARTALA
DEEPAK GUPTA, J.
Smti. Laxmi Patari (Datta) and Ors. – Appellant
Versus
Smti. Bibha Datta and ors, - Respondent
RSA NO.46 OF 2006
Decided On : 30.09.2015.
Adverse Possession - Property Dispute - Limitation Act, Section 27 - Summary
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs filed a suit for possession of land against the defendant, claiming to be the legal heirs of the original owner. The defendant had filed a previous suit claiming ownership, which was dismissed. The plaintiffs sought recovery of possession, which was contested by the defendant on the grounds of adverse possession and limitation.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the defendant's adverse possession had matured into full title, and the plaintiffs were not entitled to possession of the land. The lower appellate court's decree for compensation to the plaintiffs was upheld.
Issues: The main issues were whether the plaintiffs were required to file a counter claim or separate suit in response to the defendant's previous claim, and whether the defendant had acquired ownership through adverse possession.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the defendant's possession was hostile and adverse to the true owner, and the plaintiffs had failed to take action within the limitation period. Therefore, the defendant's adverse possession had fructified into full title, extinguishing the plaintiffs' right to the property.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the lower court's decree for compensation to the plaintiffs was upheld.
This appeal by the plaintiff-appellant is directed against the judgment and decree dated 11.8.2006 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Belonia, South Tripura in Title Appeal No.12 of 2005 partly modifying the judgment and decree dated 09.6.2005 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Belonia, South Tripura in Title Suit No.09 of 1998.
2. Plaintiffs Monoj Kanti Datta, Smti. Kiranmoyee Datta, Smti. Mamata Datta (Roy), Smti. Niva Datta (Majumder) and Smti. Abha Datta (Majumder) instituted Title Suit No.09 of 1998 against Sri Nripendra Kr. Datta praying that they were the owners of the suit land described in the schedule and prayed that a decree for possession of the suit land by removing all obstructions be passed in their favour. They also prayed for correction of Revisional Survey Khatian No.468 wherein the name of the defendant had been entered in place of the plaintiffs.
3. The case of the plaintiffs was that they were the legal heirs of Late Sudhangshu Bimal Datta who had purchased 588 decimal of land from one Nishi Kanta Datta vide registered sale deed No.3935 dated 07.7.1972. According to the plaintiffs, Nishi Kanta Datta had permitted defendant Nripendra Kr. Datta to reside in one portion of the dwelling house as permissive possessor on the condition that he would handover possession of the dwelling house on demand. Nripendra Kr. Datta continued to reside in the house and Late Sri Nishi Kanta Datta permitted him to stay on on the condition that he would vacate the suit land after 1½ months.
4. Instead of vacating the suit land, the defendant Nripendra Kr. Datta filed a suit bearing No.T.S. 230 of 1972 in the Court of the learned Munsiff, Belonia for cancellation of sale deed No.3935 dated 07.7.1972 and for perpetual injunction restraining Sudhangshu Bimal Datta from interfering in his possession. This suit was filed by Nripendra Kr. Datta and Smti. Labanya Prabha Datta. Smti. Labanya Prabha Datta was the wife of Nishi Kanta Datta and in the said suit it was claimed that Nripendra Kr. Datta had been adopted by Nishi Kanta Datta and his wife when he was only two months old. It was also alleged that the defendant Sudhangshu Bimal Datta had unduly influenced Nishi Kanta Datta in executing a sale deed No.3935 of the suit land in his favour on 07.7.72. According to the plaintiff, no consideration money was paid and there was no valid sale deed. Sudhangshu Bimal Datta who is the predecessor in interest of the present plaintiffs contested the suit. According to him, Nishi Kanta Datta had sold the suit land to him since he was tortured by his wife and Nripendra Kr. Datta. The trial Court decreed the suit in favour of the present defendant Nripendra Kr. Datta. The defendant filed an appeal being Title Appeal 15 of 1982. In the appeal, the appellate Court held that the sale deed was a valid sale deed and that Nripendra Kr. Datta was not the adopted son of Nishi Kanta Datta. Thereafter, the present defendant filed RSA 22 of 1982 and in this regular second appeal the learned Single Judge of the Agartala Bench of the Gauhati High Court upheld the finding of the learned lower appellate Court that Nripendra Kr. Datta was not the son of Nishi Kanta Datta. The Title Suit No.230 of 1972 was thus dismissed. Therefore, there is a clear cut finding that Nripendra Kr. Datta is not the owner of the land. There can be no dispute with regard to this fact.
5. After the suit filed by Nripendra Kr. Datta was dismissed, the legal heirs of Sudhangshu Bimal Datta filed a suit for recovery of possession of the land from Nripendra Kr. Datta on the ground that the civil suit of Nripendra Kr. Datta having been dismissed, they are the true owners being the sole legal heirs of Sudhangshu Bimal Datta. It was alleged that after the judgment was passed in RSA 22 of 1982, the plaintiffs approached the defendant Nripendra Kr. Datta and requested him to vacate the land but when he did not do so, they had to file the fresh suit. This s
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
