The main legal point established in the judgment is the mandatory registration requirement for gift deeds under Section 123 of the Transfer of Property Act and the significance of the record of rights in reflecting title. The court's decision emphasized the importance of complying with statutory provisions and the evidentiary value of official records in determining title and possession.

This is an appeal under Section 100 of the C.P.C. from the judgment and decree dated 30.11.2011, delivered in Title Appeal No.22 of 2011 by the District Judge, West Tripura, Agartala. The judgment under challenge has reversed the finding of the trial court as returned by the judgment and decree dated 16.05.2011 and 21.05.2011 respectively delivered in Title Suit No.38 of 2009 by the Civil Judge, Jr. Division, Bishalgarh, West Tripura.

2. At the time of admission, the following substantial questions of law were formulated by the order dated 10.04.2012:

(i) Whether a civil court can pass a decree on the basis of an unregistered gift deed when such transaction is made between two tribal persons under their own custom?

(ii) Whether the transfer of any immovable property by way of unregistered gift deed is admissible in the evidence and if so, whether on the basis of such evidence, a decree can be passed?

3. The essential fact for laying the perspective of the challenge may be introduced at the outset.

The appellant instituted the suit being T.S. No.38 of 2009 for declaration of title, confirmation of possession and perpetual injunction against the defendants, the respondents herein, in the court of the Civil Judge, Jr. Division, Bishalgarh, West Tripura in respect of the suit land as described in the schedule appended to the plaint. For purpose of reference, the description of the land as provided in the schedule is extracted hereunder:

“District– West Tripura, Pargana – Bishalgarh, P.S. & Revenue Circle – Takarjala, Mouza and Tehshil- West Takarjala, Khatian No.915, Plot No.Old PB 164/163/162/2040/part, and new plot No.2012/5193 Land.

Bounded by : North – Satya, South – Bijoy, East – Surabala, West – Bishu Kr. & Others. Total land measuring .40 acres only within this boundary.”

4. The appellant has claimed that she became the owner of the property by dint of oral partition caused by her father who was the original owner of the suit land along with other lands and thereafter, she has been cultivating the land by engaging seasonal labourers namely, Samar Debbarma and Swadesh Debbarma. She has also asserted that her father had executed a gift deed on 12.09.2008 in favour of his four daughters. Her father gave more than 10 kanies of landed properties to her brother namely, Udai Debbarma, since deceased who happened to be the husband of the respondent No.1 and the father of the respondent No.2. Her father died on 10.02.2009 and she got the suit land mutated in her name in the Khatian No.915 under Plot No.2012/5193. According to the appellant, on 15.08.2009 the respondents attempted to dispossess her from the suit land. But for resistance, they were not successful in dispossessing her.

5. By filing the written statement, the respondents seriously contested the suit. Besides the technical objections, the respondents stated that the gift deed based on which the appellant claimed the title cannot be maintained in view of the provisions of Section 123 of the Transfer of Property Act as the gift deed was not registered and accepted by the plaintiff. Further, no boundary has been shown in the schedule of the alleged gift deed. Thereafter, it has been asserted that the respondents did not receive any notice from the revenue authority while opening the new Khatian in the name of the appellant. No partition deed dated 12.08.2009 has been produced by the appellant in the court. After death of Udai Debbarma, the full blood brother of the appellant, the respondents had been possessing the suit land along with their other lands whereas the appellant is the full blood sister of said Udai Debbarma. According to the respondents, Bijoy Debbarma, the father of the appellant, had another brother, namely Rabichandra Debbarma and they got the suit land along with the other lands under Khatian No.320 of Mouja- West Takarjala. Rabichandra was handicapped and died as a bachelor. Udai looked after the landed properties of both Rabichandra and Bijoy during the