Ownership and possession claims require proving title; without it, requests to declare transfers void cannot stand.

JUDGMENT

1. This present second appeal has been filed under Section 100 of CPC by the appellants herein against the judgment and decree dated 02.12.2019 passed by the learned District Judge, West Tripura, Agartala in Title Appeal No.64 of 2016 reversing the judgment and decree dated 12.09.2016 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Court No.1, West Tripura Agartala.

2. The facts of the case in brief leading to this present second appeal are that one Indra lal Debnath i.e., the predecessor in interest of the plaintiff-respondents Nos. 1 to 4 was the owner in possession of 'A' schedule land on the strength of registered sale deed bearing No. 1-5800, dated 29.05.1972. Similarly, the predecessor of plaintiff-respondents No. 5(a) to 5(e) also claimed to be the owner in possession of the 'B' schedule land on the strength of the registered sale deed bearing No. 1- 5798, dated 29.05.1972. Both the sale deeds were executed by Subhadra Sundari Debi (now deceased), the predecessor in interest of the appellant No.1(a) and 1(b). After a few days of execution of aforesaid sale deeds, one Radha Gobinda Debnath as plaintiff had filed TS. 68 of 1972 after withdrawal of TS.20 of 1970 against the said Subhadra Sundari Debi and predecessor of the plaintiff- respondents Nos. 1 to 4 and the plaintiff-respondents No. 5(a) to 5(e) as defendants claiming right, title over the four kanis and odd land including the suit land. Due to the pendency of the said suit, the predecessor of the plaintiff-respondents did not get their land mutated, however all along they were in possession. Ultimately, the said suit was compromised before the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court, Bench at Agartala during the pendency of Second Appeal vide., SA 25 of 1985. Accordingly, a compromise decree dated 28.02.1995 was prepared on the strength of which said Subhadra Sundari Debi had got 60 % share of the entire four kanis of land including the suit land, and said Radha Gobinda Debnath got the remaining 40 % share. Thereafter, the predecessor of the plaintiff-respondents asserted that said Subadha Sundari Devi tried to take possession of the suit land and to sell most of the share to some financially sound person, etc. for which Indra Lal Debnath and predecessor of respondent No. 5(a) to 5(e) had filed T.S.02 of 2002 which was withdrawn with liberty to file afresh and thereafter T.S. 51 of 2005 was filed.

3. The learned Trial Court form the following issues for adjudication of the suit:-

'1. Is the suit maintainable in its present form and nature?

2. Have the Plaintiffs any cause of action to file the instant suit?

3. Have the plaintiffs right, title and interest over the suit land described in Schedule A and B of the plaint?

4. Is the gift deed dated 10.01.2002 void against the plaintiffs? If so, is the gift deed liable to be declared void?

5. Is the story of dispossession of the plaintiffs from the suit land on 15.02.2003 and taking over forceful possession of the suit land on 30.09.2009 by the defendants true? If so, are the plaintiffs entitled to get the possession of the suit land?

6. Are the plaintiffs entitled to a decree, as prayed for?

7. What other relief/ reliefs the plaintiffs are entitled?'

4. The predecessor of the defendant Nos.1(a) and 1(b) therein and other defendants submitted written statements denying the statements made in the plaint and asserting their right over the suit. In the suit, the plaintiffs exhibited 22 documents. The plaintiffs also examined 3 P.W.s and the defendants examined 2 D.Ws.

5. After hearing the parties, learned Trial Court dismissed the suit on contest by the Judgment and decree dated 12.09.2016. Against which the respondent Nos. 1 to 5(e) filed Title Appeal No.64 of 2016 in the Court of the District Judge, Agartala. Learned District Judge, West Tripura Agartala vide judgment and order decree dated 02.12.2019 revered the decree of the Trial Court and allowed the appeal. Hence the appellants herein have preferred this second appeal against