Back
2017 Supreme(Tri) 48
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA, AGARTALA
T. VAIPHEI, J.
Sri Jyotirmoy Ghosh S/o Lt. Nani Gopal Ghosh – Appellant
Versus
Sri Sudhangshu Das – Respondent
R.S.A. No. 44 of 2010
Decided On : 12-05-2017
For the Appellants : Mr. P.K. Dhar, Mr. R.G. Chakraborty and Ms. S. Das.
For the Respondents: Mr. D. Chakraborty, Mr. H. Laskar and Mr. S. Das.
The main legal point established is that the jurisdiction of a civil court to entertain a suit is excluded only if the suit falls within the scope of matters for which the jurisdiction is expressly or impliedly barred under the TLR & LR Act.
Headnote:
TLR & LR Act - Jurisdiction of Civil Court - Sections 26, 44, 93, 94, 95, 96, 188 - The court discussed the provisions of Sections 26 and 44 of the TLR & LR Act, which prohibit a Civil Court from entertaining suits or applications related to settlement or determination of land revenue or alteration of entries in the record of rights. The court also highlighted the procedure of revenue officers, appeals, revisions, and the jurisdiction of civil courts under the Act.
Fact of the Case:
The suit involved a dispute over the possession and title of a piece of land. The appellants contested the suit, claiming that the suit was not maintainable due to the provisions of the TLR & LR Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the suit did not relate to settlement of land revenue or alteration of entries in the record of rights, and therefore, the jurisdiction of the trial court to entertain the suit was not ousted.
Issues: The main issue was whether the suit was maintainable under the TLR & LR Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the suit did not fall within the scope of matters for which the jurisdiction of a civil court is excluded under the TLR & LR Act.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the trial court was directed to proceed with the suit and dispose of it in accordance with the law.
1. This second appeal U/s 100 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“the Code” for short) was admitted for hearing on the following substantial question of law:
“Whether the learned first appellate court committed error by holding that the provision of Sections 26 and 44 of TLR and LR Act, 1960 is not applicable to the present case and that the suit was maintainable?”
2. The controversy arose when the predecessor of the respondent No. 1 to 6 instituted Title Suit No. 82 of 1994 before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No. 1, Agartala against the predecessor of the pro forma respondent Nos. 7 to 11 and the appellants herein for declaration of title and perpetual injunction, etc. The appellants were initially made the pro forma defendants in that suit but were subsequently deleted as parties to the suit. According to the appellants, they purchased a part of the suit land from the predecessor of pro forma respondent No. 7 to 11 whereupon they came to be added as parties to the suit. As the value of the suit got increased, the jurisdiction of the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division came to be ousted, which resulted in the return of the plaint. This prompted the predecessor of the respondent Nos. 1 to 6 to present plaint before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court No. 1, Agartala. The suit was ultimately transferred to the file of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court No. 2, Agartala. The appellants as well as the pro forma respondents contested the suit by filing their respective written statements. During the pendency of the suit, the predecessor of the respondent Nos. 1 to 6 died, and was substituted by the respondent Nos. 1 to 6 as his legal representatives. Again, during the pendency of the suit, the predecessor of the pro forma respondent Nos. 7 to 11 also expired and was substituted by them as his legal representatives. In the meantime, a part of the suit land was purchased by the pro forma respondent Nos. 12 and 13, who came to added as parties to the suit.
3. The genesis of the suit, as per the plaint, is that the suit land was originally a marshy and patit land of Kayemi Taluk No. 12(1) of Mouja old Ramnagar and had belonged to one Samser Ali Bhuiyan who granted rayati settlement to the predecessor of the respondent Nos. 1 to 6 in the year 1961 with delivery of possession with jote number. The rent was paid by the predecessor of respondent Nos. 1 to 6, who became raiyat under the said Samser Ali Bhuiyan. In the month of December, 1963, the predecessor of the respondent Nos. 7 to 11 trespassed into the suit land which prompted the predecessor of the respondent Nos. 1 to 6 to institute Title Suit No. 86 of 1964 against the predecessor of the pro forma respondent Nos. 7 to 11. The suit was, however, compromised with the result that the respondent Nos. 1 to 6 was granted a decree for recovery of possession. The suit land was thereafter let out to the predecessor of the respondent Nos. 7 to 11. After the expiry of the rent period, the predecessor of the pro forma respondent Nos. 7 to 11 surrendered the suit land and claimed certain amount of money allegedly spent by them for the improvement of the suit land, and the same was paid by the predecessor of the respondent Nos. 1 to 6 whereafter the appellants herein were inducted as monthly tenant of the predecessor of the respondent Nos. 1 to 6. On 15.3.2010, the predecessor of the respondent Nos. 1 to 6 came to learn from the written statement filed by the appellants that they purchased a portion of the suit land which resulted in amendment of the plaint by adding the prayer for recovery of khas possession. The appellants contested the suit by filing their written statement. After the plaint was returned, the suit was registered as Title Suit No. 52 of 2001 in the Court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court No. 1, Agartala where the returned plaint was presented by the original plaintiff. The appellants, however, filed an appl
