The court ruled that disputed gift deeds require credible evidence for enforcement; joint property claims must prioritize actual possession and entitlement over mere assertions of gift.

JUDGMENT

T. Amarnath Goud, J. - This is an appeal under Section 100 of the CPC 1908 from the judgment and decree dated 03.12.2016 passed in case No. Title Appeal 65 of 2013 by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 3, West Tripura, Agartala dismissing the appeal preferred against the judgment dated 27.09.2004 passed by the Civil Judge, Sr. Division (Court No. 2), West Triprua, Agartala in TS (Part) 78 of 2003.

2. At the outset, the controversy that led to filing of the suit may briefly be introduced. The respondents (herein after referred to as plaintiff-respondents) as Plaintiffs instituted the Title Suit (P) 78 of 2003 in the Court of Ld. Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Court No. 2, West Tripura, Agartala against the appellant (herein after referred to as the defendant-appellant) for partition of their joint properties in 1/7th share as described under schedule 1 and 2 of the plaint.

3. In a nutshell the case of the plaintiff-respondents was that the suit land described under Schedule-1 of the plaint is the land inherited by the plaintiff-respondents and defendant-appellant from their predecessor-in-interest namely Akhil Chandra Sarkar and also the suit land described under Schedule-2 is jointly purchased by them. The plaintiff-respondents wanted for partition of the said land purchased by them. Their predecessor-in-interest Lt. Akhil Ch. Sarkar owned and possessed the land described under schedule-1 of the plaint and the plaintiff-respondents and defendant-appellant are the owner in possession of the 2nd schedule land and after the death of their predecessor-in-interest they have been jointly possession the said lands. It is a also asserted in the plaint that the plaintiff-respondents recently noticed that the defendant-appellant has been trying very vigorously to get and utilize all the benefits of the land depriving them taking the advantage of their faith and trust reposed on him when the plaintiff-respondents requested the defendant-appellant for amicable partition to overcome to said situation he turnaround and lastly refused the proposal on 9.7.03.

4. The plaintiff-respondents herein filed the suit in the trial court for partition of their joint properties in 1/7th share as described under schedule 1 and 2 of the plaint

Schedule-1

District-West Tripura, Sub-Registry office-Sadar, Tehsil-Badharghat, Revenue Circle-Dukli, Sub-Division Bishalgarh, Mouja- Badharghat, PS. Amtalli, Khatian No. 1821, Jer Khatian No. 1821/1, 1821/2, C.S. Plot No. 5674, 5675, 5676, 5677, 5678, 5679(P), 5680, 5689, 5690, 5691, 5694, Class of Land Nal, land measuring 1.61 acres or 4 kani as per local measurement Class of land Nal. Bounded by:

North- Behari Sarkar, Satayendra Biswas,

South-Krishan Das, and Sukumar Dey,

East-Suresh Das, Nabadwip Das, Sudhan Das,

M=Bimal Das,

West-Nishi Sarkar.

Schedule-2

District- West Tripura, Sub-Registry Office-Sadar, Tehsil, Badharghat, Revenue Circle-Dukli, Sub-Division-Bishalgarh, Mouja-Badharghat, PS-Amtali, Khatian No. 5886, C.S. Plot No. 5579, 5580, 5667, 5668, 5809/14219, land measuring 1.30 acres or 3 kani 5 ganda as per local measurement. Class of land Bastu viti bounded by

North-Sataya master, Behari Sarkar

South-Self.

East-Self

West-Nishi Sarkar.

5. The defendant-appellant herein filed the written statement. In the written statement so filed, it has been categorically stated by the defendant-appellant that the plaintiff-respondents never made any proposal to the defendant-appellant for amicable partition of the homestead land nor the respondents are entitled to get 1/7th (One seventh) share of the schedule property as because the plaintiff-respondents No. 2, 3 and 4 are the sisters of defendan