A plaintiff must seek a declaration of title when the defendant denies it, as failure to do so renders a suit for confirmation of title invalid.

JUDGMENT :

T. Amarnath Goud, J.

1. Heard Mr. S.M. Chakraborty, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Suman Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing for the defendant-appellants. Also heard Mr. Somik Deb, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. P.L. Debbarma, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff-respondent.

2. The present appeal is filed under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 by the appellants against the judgment and decree dated 24.08.2023 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court No.1, Gomati District, Udaipur, Tripura in T.S. 44 of 2021 decreeing the suit in favour of the plaintiff respondent.

3. The brief fact of this case as enumerated in the plaint before the Court below is that the plaintiff (respondent herein) purchased land measuring 1.24 acres described in schedule A of the plaint vide registered Sale deed No. 889 of 2014 dated 19.05.2014 for consideration of Rs. 14,80,000/- only from defendant Nos. 1 & 2 (appellants herein) and thereafter, also took possession of the same. It was contended on behalf of the Plaintiff before the Court below that he got mutation of the said purchased land in his favour as per provisions of Section 46(1) of TLR & LR Act 1960. It was also stated by the plaintiff that out of total land measuring 1.24 acres, land measuring 0.84 acres is situated at Mouja Tepania and was recorded in Khatian No. 1457 in his favour and another land measuring 0.40 acres of land was recorded in Khatian No. 293 of Mouja Chataria in his favour. It was further asserted by the plaintiff that on 16.02.2015, he again purchased another 0.46 acres of Nal class of land, surveyed in RS plot No. 198 corresponding old plot No. 80 recorded in Khatian No. 1187 of Mouja Tepania from one Sri Narayan Chakraborty for consideration of Rs. 2,30,000/- only, which more particularly is described in schedule B of the plaint and on 16.02.2016, he also took possession of the same. Thereafter, plaintiff got mutation of the said purchased land in his name and incorporated his name in the same Khatian.

4. Plaintiff also stated that, defendants are his close associates and for his livelihood, he had to leave for Kuwait keeping his family at Khilpara. As the wife of the plaintiff was not in a position to look after the said purchased land, he engaged the defendants for taking care of the suit land on his behalf, with a condition that, defendants would vacate the suit land or the possession of the suit land as and when demanded or when the plaintiff returned back from Kuwait. It was agreed by the plaintiff and defendants that during their possession, defendants can produce crops on schedule B land of the plaint and enjoy usufructs. Since then the defendants were holding as permissive possessor of the suit land. The plaintiff claimed that, when he returned back from Kuwait to home on 06.08.2018, thereafter, on 15.08.2018, he met the defendants and asked them to vacate the possession of the suit land, but at that time, defendants refused to vacate the possession of the suit land. It was also asserted by the plaintiff that, defendants also denied his title over the suit land. The plaintiff also claimed that, defendants thereby, became trespassers since from 15.08.2018 over the suit land, as defendants denied his title and refused to part away the possession of the suit land. Thereafter, being aggrieved, the plaintiff filed a suit before the learned Court below for confirmation of title and recovery of possession over the suit land.

5. Thereafter, summons were duly served upon both the defendants and they by filing written statement contested the suit before the learned Court below. It was stated on behalf of the defendants that on 13.12.2018, the plaintiff entered into an agreement with defendant No.1 to sell .40 acres of land, appertaining to Hal plot Nos. 938 & 939 bounded by north- defendant No.1, south- Chandra Mohan Debnath and Nipendra Chakraborty, East- Ayat Ali. It was also asserted by the defendants that th