Title recognition and possession disputes within land transactions must be based on substantiated evidence; reliance on past ownership claims alone is insufficient for contesting title.

JUDGMENT

1. Heard Mr. Raju Datta, learned counsel for the defendant-appellants as well as Mr. P. Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

2. The present second appeal originates from the judgment and decree dated 04.01.2019 passed by the learned District Judge, West Tripura, Agartala, in connection with Title Appeal 42 of 2014 affirming the judgment and decree dated 13.08.2014 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Court no. 1, West Tripura, Agartala in Title Suit 67 of 2012.

3. At the time of admission of the appeal, the following substantial question of law had been formulated:

'By not determining whether the suit land is attracted either by the partition deed (Exbt.-1) or by the title deed of the defendants dated 11.11.2005 (Exbt.-B), the First Appellate Court has caused illegality, perversity and the failure of justice?'

4. Briefly stated, the plaintiffs had filed a suit for declaration of right, title and interest and recovery of possession over the suit land. After being summoned, the appellant-defendants, [here-in-after referred to as the defendants] appeared and contested the suit by filing written statement. The defendants denied the title of the plaintiffs over the suit land, and according to the defendants, the plaintiffs have no right to seek for a direction for recovery of possession. The defendants have claimed that originally the joint owners of the suit land alongwith other lands comprising of an area of 7.73 acres were one Satish chandra Sutradhar and four others who sold out total 3.85 acres of the suit land to one Sri Nandalal Chakraborty by dint of a registered sale deed no. I-4398 dated 15.04.1972 and said Nandalal Chakraborty transferred the said 3.85 acres of land to one Sushil kumar Roy vide Deed no. I-5453 dated 10.07.1989, and then said Sushil kumar Roy transferred the said total land to the defendants vide registered Deed no. I-12218 dated 11.11.2005, and since then they have been enjoying the same and khatian has also been mutated in their names and question of dispossession of the plaintiffs does not arise.

5. While deciding the title of the plaintiffs, both the courts below have held that 0.64 acres of land was recorded in RS khatian No. 1341 against the CS plot no. 1624/5615 in the name of Surendra chandra Sutradhar vide Exhibit-2. Thereafter, the learned first appellate court had recorded a finding that when he did not transfer any land from said plot to the defendants, their claim over the suit plot is not tenable. Though learned counsel, Mr. DR Choudhury argued that the boundary of the purchased deed of Nandalal Chakraborty could be relayed, but, same is not necessary in view of the said discussion. Thus, no impropriety is found in the impugned judgment. Thereafter, the learned first appellate court held 'When title to the suit land has been established in favour of the plaintiffs, factum of possession or dispossession loses its importance, especially when there is no claim of adverse possession by the defendants. Moreso, PW.2, Biplab Sarkar and PW.3 Narayan Das deposed about dispossession of the plaintiffs from suit land on 10.7.2006, though in cross examination, PW.2 admitted that he did not know the quantum of suit land but confirmed that during the year 2006 when the defendants were cleaning jungle in the suit land PW.1 protested to it. PW.3 similarly confirmed in his cross examination that the defendants were possessing the suit land for last 5/6 years though he also could give the details of description of suit land. PW.4 is, however, not much reliable as in her cross examination she stated that the plaintiffs were still in possession of the suit land. However, regarding the matter of dispossession eviden