Back
2017 Supreme(Tri) 91
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA AGARTALA
S.C. DAS, J.
Sri Sudhan Chandra Biswas, son of Late Jogendra Kr. Biswas - Appellant.
Vs.
Smti. Rekha Rani Banik, wife of Late Barun Ch. Banik – Respondent
RSA No.07 of 2009
Decided On : 12-01-2017
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. D. Bhattacharji, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Mr. D.C. Roy, Advocate.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a plaintiff who has proved possession over the suit land is entitled to a decree of permanent injunction for the entire claimed land, even if mutation was not allowed for the entire purchased land.
Headnote:
judgment - permanent injunction - - [Transfer of Property Act, Section 54, Specific Relief Act, Section 38, Civil Procedure Code, Order 41 Rule 1] - The court discussed the plaintiff's claim for permanent injunction, the defendant's denial of the plaintiff's possession, and the mutation of land. The court considered the evidence presented, including deeds of purchase, mutation cases, and khatian records, and concluded that the plaintiff was entitled to a decree of permanent injunction for the entire suit land of 7.69 acres as prayed for. The judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court and the Appellate Court were set aside, and the suit filed by the plaintiff was allowed and decreed. The defendants were restrained from disturbing or interfering with the plaintiff's possession in the suit land described in the schedule of the plaint.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff sought a decree of perpetual injunction against the defendants restraining them from disturbing the possession of the plaintiff in the suit land. The plaintiff claimed to have purchased 7.90 acres of land, but mutation was allowed for only 4.79 acres, and the defendants contested the plaintiff's possession.
Finding of the Court:
The Trial Court partly decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff, considering the evidence presented. The District Judge, South Tripura, Udaipur affirmed the judgment and decree of the Trial Court. However, the second appeal set aside the previous judgments and decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff for the entire 7.69 acres of land.
Issues: The issues included the maintainability of the suit, the plaintiff's possession of the suit land, and the entitlement of the plaintiff to any relief.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the plaintiff had proved his possession over the suit land and was entitled to a decree of permanent injunction for the entire 7.69 acres of land as prayed for.
Final Decision: The suit filed by the plaintiff seeking permanent injunction of his purchased land measuring 7.69 acres was allowed and decreed. The defendants were restrained from disturbing or interfering with the possession of the plaintiff in the suit land described in the schedule of the plaint.
This second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 01.10.2008 & 15.10.2008 respectively passed by learned District Judge, South Tripura, Udaipur in Title Appeal No.2 of 2008 along with Title Appeal (cross) No.03 of 2008, whereunder the judgment and decree dated 18.02.2008 and 20.02.2008 respectively passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Sabroom, South Tripura in Title Suit No.6 of 2007 has been affirmed.
2. Heard learned counsel, Mr. D. Bhattacharji for the appellant and learned counsel, Mr. D.C. Roy for the respondents.
3. The second appeal has been admitted for hearing on the following substantial question of law:-
“I. Whether the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below suffers from perversity?”
4. The appellant as plaintiff (hereinafter mentioned as 'plaintiff') instituted Title Suit No.6 of 2007 against the respondents as defendants (hereinafter mentioned as 'defendants') in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) Sabroom seeking a decree of perpetual injunction against the defendants restraining them from disturbing the possession of the plaintiff in the suit land described in the schedule of the plaint.
5. Bereft of unnecessary details, the pleaded case of the parties may be summarized thus:-
The plaintiff inter-alia, contended that in the year 1969 Pyari Mohan Debnath got allotment of 4.90 acres of land and Raj Mohan Debnath got allotment of 3.00 acres of land and the allotted lands were recorded in their names in khatian No.1370 and 1380 respectively in different plot numbers.
By a registered deed of purchase, vide deed No.1-821 dated 20.10.1982, the plaintiff purchased the entire land from Pyari Mohan Debnath and by a deed of purchase No.1-876 dated 03.12.1982 he also purchased the entire allotted land of Raj Mohan Debnath and thereby became owner of total 7.90 acres of land. After such purchase the plaintiff for extension of road relinquished 0.21 acres of land and, therefore, 7.69 acres of land remained in his possession and he developed it and planted rubber plants.
Seeking mutation he approached the Revenue Authority and M.R. Case No.59 of 2006 was registered for the mutation of the land purchased from Raj Mohan Debnath and M.R. Case No.63 of 2006 was registered for mutation of land purchased from Pyari Mohan Debnath. Though the plaintiff purchased from Raj Mohan Debnath total 3.00 acres of land but the Revenue Authority allowed mutation of 2.55 acres of land recorded in Khatian No.1626 (Exbt-4).
Similarly, though he purchased 4.90 acres of land from Pyari Mohan Debnath the Revenue Authority allowed mutation of 2.24 acres of land and Khatain No.1627 (Exbt-8) was created in the name of the plaintiff. The plaintiff was thereby allowed mutation of total 4.79 acres of land and for the rest land mutation was not allowed and the plaintiff approached again for the mutation for the rest part of the land but that was pending.
It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendants on 25.01.2007 tried to dispossess the plaintiff from suit land but the plaintiff resisted the defendants and so the defendants failed to dispossess the plaintiff.
6. The defendants by filing written statement contested the suit denying the averments made in the plaint and further contented that one Hiralal Das got allotment of 5.01 acres of land in the year 1973 and another Upendra Kumar Sukla Das got allotment of 3.00 acres of land in the same year and the predecessor of the defendants namely Barun Chandra Banik purchased the land from those Hiralal Das and Upendra Kumar Sukla Das vide registered sale deed and got possession of the purchased land. They have planted rubber plants on their purchased land and have been possessing the same.
It was also stated by the defendants that the alleged purchase of the plaintiff was only a paper transaction and that the plaintiff did not get possession of the land purchased from his predecessors. The defendants, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the suit.
7. The Tri
