SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2017 Supreme(Tri) 393

IN THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA, AGARTALA
T. VAIPHEI, S. TALAPATRA, JJ.
Sri Subrata Ghosh, S/O. Lt. Sadhan Ch. Ghosh – Appellant
Versus
Sri Nababrata Ghosh, S/O. Lt. Sadhan Ch. Ghosh – Respondent
Rfa No.11 of 2016
Decided On : 29-08-2017

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. D.R. Chowdhury, Advocate, Mr. S. Sarkar, Advocate Counsel
For the Respondent:Mr. A. Sengupta, Advocate

The importance of providing substantial evidence to support claims and the burden of proof in cases involving the validity of registered instruments.

Headnote:

Gift Deed - Property Dispute - Transfer of Property Act - Section 122 - Summary: The court discussed the validity of the registered Gift Deed and its execution by the father, considering the evidence of attesting witnesses and the scribe of the deed. The court emphasized that the appellant failed to provide substantial evidence to prove that the father was not mentally fit to execute the Gift Deed. The court also highlighted that the Trade Licence and Registration Certificate issued to the appellant did not annul the registered Gift Deed, as they did not confer any right to the immovable property. The appellant's failure to file a forgery case against the respondent and to provide evidence regarding the alleged forgery further weakened his case. The court dismissed the appeal, stating that the appellant had failed to prove his case.

Fact of the Case:

The respondent filed a suit for eviction and recovery of possession of a property from the appellant, claiming rent arrears and compensation. The appellant contested the suit, denying the validity of a registered Gift Deed and the existence of a lease agreement.

Finding of the Court:

The court found in favor of the respondent, holding that the registered Gift Deed and the lease agreement were valid and that the appellant failed to provide substantial evidence to support his claims.

Issues: 1. Suit maintainability 2. Validity of the Gift Deed 3. Existence of the lease agreement 4. Entitlement to eviction and relief

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of providing substantial evidence to support claims and highlighted the significance of registered instruments such as the Gift Deed. The court also stressed the burden of proof on the appellant regarding the alleged forgery.

Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the parties were directed to bear their respective costs.

JUDGMENT & ORDER :

T. Vaiphei, J.

1. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 19-12-2015 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Court No. 2, West Tripura, Agartala in T.S. No. 70 of 2011 decreeing the suit amounting to Rs.1,03,18,000/- in favour of the respondent, this appeal has been preferred by the appellant.

2. At the outset, it may be noticed that the appellant and the respondent are brothers and that all attempts made by the parties to settle their disputes, unfortunately, came a cropper. The material facts of the case may be briefly noticed at the outset. The respondent-plaintiff instituted the suit before the learned /civil Judge for eviction of the appellant from the suit land and for recovery of possession thereof with rent arrears valued at Rs.1,03,18,000/- from him. The suit land is situated at Khowai, Teliamura Tehsil and Mouza under Sabek Khatian No.1883, Sabek Plot No.1146/p, Haal Plot Nos. 2594, 2598 and 2599 measuring 1 Ganda, 3 Karas and 3 Dhurs upon which one multistoried building is standing with one sweetmeat shop under the name and style of “Adi Brahmanbaria Mistanna Bhandar located on the ground floor. The suit land originally belonged to the father of the appellant and the respondent, the late Sadhan Ch. Ghosh, who predeceased them. According to the respondent, the late Sadhan Ch. Ghosh gifted the suit land by mean of a registered Gift Deed on 06-8-2003 in his favour and that on the request of the appellant, the respondent entered into a lease agreement with the appellant before the Notary Public on 29-12-2009 for leasing out the ground of the said building for running the said sweet shop. The case of the respondent is that the appellant right from day refused to abide by the terms and conditions of the lease agreement; he neither paid the security deposit amounting to Rs.60,000/- nor did he regularly pay the house rent so much so that a sum of Rs.2,40,000/- has accrued to him till April, 2011 as rent arrears. In addition to that, the appellant is yet to pay the compensation arrears by way of rent dues, penalty, etc. amounting to Rs.50,000/- with the result that the appellant is liable to pay a sum of Rs.1,03,18,000/- to the respondent for rent arrears, etc. As per the terms of agreement, the respondent served a notice upon the appellant for payment of the rent arrears including the penalty as well as for handing over vacant possession of the suit premises to him by 15-2-2011 in good condition, but to no avail. This prompted the respondent to institute the suit.

3. The appellant contested the suit and filed his written statement. His case is that their father, the late Sadhan Ch. Ghosh was the real owner of the suit land and had constructed a three-storied building including the sweet shop on the ground floor run by him. According to him, their father became serious ill in the year 2002 after paralysis and handed over the business to him, who then continued the business by taking loans from different financial institutions. He then filed a partition suit for partitioning their ancestral property which was still in the name of their deceased father. It is asserted by the appellant that the gift deed was created mala fide by the respondent when their father had no mental capacity to execute such Gift deed due to serious disabilities and that he has been possessing the sweet shop for a long time i.e. since the time their father became ill; he has a licence for running the shop. He denied that he ever requested the respondent to let out the shop premises to carry on the business or that any deed of agreement of lease for the shop was ever executed. According to him, the respondent created and made up the document for defrauding him or that he ever paid any rent to the respondent as he did not recognize any lease agreement executed by the respondent in his favour. He took loan from UBI, Teliamura Branch for the said business and bore the expenditures for the treatment of his ailing father. Accordi















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top