Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA AT AGARTALA
S. TALAPATRA, J.
Shri Bikash Som – Appellant
Versus
Shri Suchitra Kumar Baidya, son of late Haidhan Baidya - Respondent
RSA No.6 of 2014
Decided on : 29-06-2018
CPC - Appeal under Section 100 - Order XXI Rule 99 - Summary of Acts and Sections: Order XXI Rule 97, Rule 99, Rule 100, Rule 101, Rule 102, Rule 105, Rule 106 - The judgment discusses the applicability of Order XXI Rule 97 and Rule 99 of the CPC, the limitations of a decree passed in a suit instituted under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, and the right of the appellants to file a separate suit for recovery of the land as the owner under Section 5 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants sought intervention to protect their possession over a part of decreetal land. They claimed ownership of the land but were not party to the original suit. The suit was decreed, and the appellants filed an application under Order XXI Rule 99 seeking restoration of possession. The application was dismissed, leading to the appeal.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellants cannot maintain an application under Rule 97 or Rule 99 of Order XXI of the CPC as they were not in possession. The court also clarified that a decree under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 cannot determine ownership of the land. The appellants were advised to file a separate suit under Section 5 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 for recovery of the land as the owner.
Issues: The main issues were whether the appellants had the right to apply under Rule 97 or Rule 99, whether the decree under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 determined ownership, and if the appellants could file a separate suit for recovery of the land as the owner.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the appellants cannot maintain an application under Rule 97 or Rule 99 as they were not in possession. It also clarified that a decree under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 cannot determine ownership, and advised the appellants to file a separate suit under Section 5 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 for recovery of the land as the owner.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the court advised the appellants to pursue their remedy in a separate suit under Section 5 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.
From the note of the Registry dated 24.04.2014, it appears that all the respondents have received the notice properly, but there is no representation from them. By the order dated 05.05.2014 this court has observed as under:
“Notices also served on the respondents, but the respondents chosen to remain silent.”
2. This is an appeal under Section 100 of the CPC from the order dated 30.11.2013 passed by the District Judge, South Tripura, Udaipur, as he then was, in Civil Misc. Appeal No.02 of 2013. By the said order dated 20.11.2013, the order dated 09.07.2013 delivered in Civil Misc. 02 of 2013 in EXE (T) 3/2012 by the Executing Court [the court of the Civil Judge, Junior Division] Udaipur, South Tripura, as he then was] has been affirmed.
3. By the order dated 19.03.2014, this appeal was admitted on the following substantial question of law for hearing:
“Whether the Judgment & Decree passed by the Court’s below suffer from perversity?”
4. The appellant was given leave to raise further substantial question of law, but no such endeavour has been made by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants. According to the appellant, he was not party to the Suit being TS 20/08 as instituted by Shri Suchitra Kumar Baidya, the respondent No.1 herein. In that suit, Sri Prafulla Pal, son of late Radhakrishna Pal and Shri Kalipada Pal, son of Shri Prafulla Pal were the defendants. But at the time of execution of the decree dated 20.07.2010 issued in TS No.20 of 2008, the present appellants in order to protect their possession over the part of decreetal land filed an application under Order XXI Rule 99 read with Section 151 of the C.P.C. seeking intervention of the executing court [the court of the Civil Judge, Junior Division], Udaipur, as he then was] being Civil Misc. 02/2013 for apprehension of their dispossession during execution of the said decree. In the said application, what the appellants herein as the applicants had asserted is required to be noted in brief. The piece of land measuring 0.01 acre corresponding to 2 karas 1 dhur appertaining to Khatian No.133, comprised in the old plot No.2746/4708 corresponding to RS Plot No.5757 at Mouja Jitendranagar described elaborately in the schedule provided in the said application. If the said land is compared with the land as described in the decree, it would appear that the land and the land as described in the schedule do bear the same description. For purpose of reference, the schedule of the decretal land as provided in the decree is extracted hereunder:
SCHEDULE OF THE DECREETAL LAND
Within P.S. Kakraban Under Mouja: Jitendranagar, R.S. Khatian No.133, Sabek Dag No.2746/4708, Hal Plot No.5757, Nature: Dokan, the land butted and bounded by:
North : Legal heirs of Late Raimohan Shom namely Babul Shom & others.
South : Milan Kar.
East : P.W.D. Road.
West : Legal heirs of Aswini Kumar Shom namely Ranjan Dhom & Others.
Within this boundary land measuring .01 acre.
5. The appellant as the applicants have asserted further that their predecessor namely Ashwini Kumar Some acquired the land measuring 1 drone 1 kani 14 gandas including the decretal land by dint of a registered exchange deed bearing No.1520 dated 26.04.1963 executed by one Saiyad Ali and six others through their lawful attorney and got physical possession of the suit property which is described by the specific boundary. Thereafter, the said land, based on the said exchange deed was recorded in the khatian after mutation. Aswini Kumar Some died in the year 1965. After his death the said land devolved to the appellants by inheritance. The substantive part of the said land were sold to different persons by executing the deeds of sale as per law. The remaining land including the decretal land was surveyed under the old C.S. Plot No.2746, 2746/4708, 4710 corresponding to R.S. Plot No.5742, 5744, 5746, 5747, 5749, 5756, 5763 and 5757 and those were recorded in Khatian No.129/1, 129/2 and 133 at Mouja Jitendra Nagar for an area o
AI
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
