Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Gau) 8259
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA AT AGARTALA
Apurba Kumar Dutta, J
Thana Road Sarbojanin Durgapuja Committee – Appellant
Versus
Krishna Kumar Sinha and Another – Respondent
T.S. No.12 of 2021
For the Appellants/Petitioners: S. M. Chakraborty, P. Chakraborty
For the Respondents: C. S. Sinha
Court affirmed plaintiff's title and entitlement to land possession against defendant's claim based on long-term possession without legal title.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 96 - Recovery of possession - Appeal against trial court's decree in favor of plaintiffs declaring their ownership and ordering recovery of possession of land - Defendants claimed ownership based on long-term possession and verbal promises of predecessor - Trial court found plaintiffs established their right to property and ordered restoration of possession, alongside a perpetual injunction against defendants. (Paras 10, 21, 22)
(B) Maintainability of suit - Issue of undervaluation and proper identification of land - Court ruled that amendment of plaint rectified initial valuation issues and identification was sufficient under CPC requirements - No evidence of under-valuation or lack of identification. (Paras 11, 22)
Facts of the case:
Respondent-plaintiffs claimed ownership of land, establishing it through purchase documents and various administrative actions supporting their title against the encroachments by appellant-defendants, who had constructed a community hall on the disputed land.
Findings of Court:
Trial court ruled in favor of plaintiffs after thorough review of evidence, confirming their right to ownership and ordering the removal of encroachments within a specified time frame.
Issues: The main issues were the adequacy of land identification, the valuation of the suit land, and whether there was any legal standing for the defendants to claim possession against the plaintiffs’ title.
Ratio Decidendi: The court upheld the trial court’s findings, emphasizing that plaintiffs had established their title against mere verbal claims by defendants and reinforced the principle of ownership through recognized documentation and sustained possession.
Result: The appeal filed by the appellant fails and accordingly, it stands dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. plaintiffs assert ownership and possessory rights against encroachments. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. assessment of property rights and the basis for valuation in land disputes. (Para 8 , 10 , 11) |
| 3. court upheld plaintiffs' rights based on evidence of ownership and dispossession. (Para 21 , 22 , 23) |
1. This appeal under S.96 of CPC, 1908 is preferred challenging the judgment dated 02.08.2023 and decree dated 07.08.2023 passed by Learned Civil Judge (Senior Div.), North Tripura, Dharmanagar in connection with case No.T.S. No.12 of 2021.
2. Heard Learned Senior Counsel, Mr. S. M. Chakraborty assisted by Learned Counsel Ms. P. Chakraborty appearing for the appellants - defendants and also heard Learned Counsel Mr. C. S. Sinha appearing for the respondents - plaintiffs.
3. Before proceeding with the merit of the appeal, let us revisit the subject - matter of the dispute amongst the rival parties for which the suit was filed.
4. The respondent - plaintiffs filed the suit before the Court of Learned Civil Judge, Sr. Div, North Tripura, Dharmanagar which was numbered as T.S. No.12 of 2021. The suit was filed by the respondent - plaintiffs for declaration, injunction and recovery of possession. It was the assertions of the respondent - plaintiffs that the plaintiffs are the owners and possessor of land measuring 0.080 acres under Khatian No.5838 pertaining to Hal Dag No.3618/14295 corresponding to Sabek Dag No.2853(p) under Mouja - Dharmanagar Town, T.K. - Dharmanagar as described in the Schedule below. According to the respondents - plaintiffs, they purchased the land from one Dhirendra Chandra Malakar and Sabita Malakar by Regd. Sale Deed bearing No.1 - 1672, (Sl. No.1944) dated 12-06-2001 in lieu of consideration money and since then they have been possessing the said plot of land and later on, the said land was mutated in their favour vide khatian No.5838 corresponding to old plot No.2853p and Hal Dag No.3618/14295 in favour of the respondent - plaintiffs as described in the schedule 'A' of the plaint and the class of the land according to the respondent - plaintiffs have been diverted as per order of SDM vide order dated 21.11.2002. It was further submitted that the respondent - plaintiffs obtained site plan for the purpose of construction of boundary wall of the land as mentioned in the schedule 'A' of the plaint from the competent authority.
5. It was further submitted that for last few years, the members of Thana Road Sarbojanin Durgapuja Committee i.e. the defendants - appellants, their men and agents have been disturbing in peaceful possession of the respondents - plaintiffs and they were trying to encroach the northern side and western boundary of the respondents - plaintiffs for their illegal gain for which time to time the respondents - plaintiffs sought assistance from the local administration and the police authority. On 28.01.2007 at about 9/10 a.m., some men and agents under the leadership of one Kanailal Sarma (since dead), the then Secretary of the Thana Road Sarbojanin Durgapuja Committee and Haripada Deb, president of the puja committee defendant No.1 tried to construct a community hall encroaching the western and northern boundary fencing of the land of the respondents - plaintiffs illegally and for which the respondents - plaintiffs lodged a complaint to the O.C. Dharmanagar Police Station. According to the respondent - plaintiffs, due to such disturbances by the appellant - defendants, the plaintiffs made so many complaints, applications, petitions to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Police Station and other authorities but got no response. It was further submitted that the puja committee tried to take possession of the suit land and for that, the respondent - plaintiff were compelled to file a petition before SDM for remedies which is still pending for disposal.
6. On 10.05.2020, the defendant - appellants, their men and agents had constructed a community hall encroaching and forcefully taking possession of t
