SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Gau) 13338

TRIPURA HIGH COURT
Learned District Judge, J
Sushanti Debnath v. Satsang a registered Society
Title Appeal No.20 of 2022 | Title Suit No.30 of 2017



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. S. Deb
For the Respondents: Mr. D.K. Biswas

The principle of res judicata applies when the same parties have litigated substantially the same issue in a previous suit, barring re-litigation of those issues.

Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 11 - Res judicata - Title Suit No.30 of 2017 - Suit for recovery of possession affirmed by First Appellate Court, declaring plaintiff’s right over the land gifted by one Thakurmani Debnath - Defendants challenged ownership, citing previous dispossession, but prior judgment ruled in favor of plaintiff, making it res judicata - Issue of whether lands in connected suits are substantially the same addressed - Court found defendants lacked ownership and were bound by prior adjudication (Paras 3, 5, 7, 12, 18, 26).

(B) Appeal - Grounds of appeal raised included misapplication of res judicata and lack of compliance with Order XLI Rule 31 - Court held that even if not framed specifically, the issue was raised and decided, and no prejudice was shown to defendants (Paras 9, 30).

(C)

Findings of Court:
Previous suit’s decision was binding; deficiencies in the reasoning of the learned first appellate court did not result in prejudice to defendants (Paras 26, 33).

(D)

Issues: Main questions included whether the ownership was sufficiently substantiated given the prior decision and if res judicata applied despite the defendants’ different claims of land size (Paras 11, 15). (E)

Ratio Decidendi: The court affirmed that findings in a previous suit bindingly establish the rights of parties. It held that failing to frame an issue does not negate the decision-making authority regarding res judicata (Paras 18, 30). (F)

Result: The appeal dismissed with costs in favor of the respondent.

Table of Content
1. factual basis of ownership dispute. (Para 1 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. court's finding on res judicata. (Para 7 , 8 , 12)
3. arguments regarding misapplication of res judicata. (Para 9 , 10 , 16 , 20 , 24)
4. legal principles on res judicata applicability. (Para 11 , 19)
5. dismissal of appeal with a cost order. (Para 33)

1. The appeal arises from the judgment dated 18.12.2023 passed by the learned District Judge, North Tripura, Dharmanagar in Title Appeal No.20 of 2022 and related decree thereof. By said judgment, learned First Appellate Court affirmed the judgment dated 01.08.2022 of the learned Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Court No.2, North Tripura, Dharmanagar in Title Suit No.30 of 2017, whereby the right, title and interest of the plaintiff (the respondent herein) in the suit land was declared and prayer for recovery of possession of a part thereof, described in the 'B' schedule of the plaint was granted.

2. The appellants (the defendants of the original suit) being aggrieved by the concurrent findings of both the learned courts below have preferred this appeal.

3. The plaintiff, a Society, called the Satsang, institutes the suit with the averments that they became the owner of 0.15 acres of land of CS Plot No.2269 and 2265 (P) [described in the schedule of the plaint] by way of registered gift deed executed by one Thakurmani Debnath vide deed of gift No.1-2504 dated 22.04.1976 [Exbt.2]. According to them, said Thakurmani Debnath, purchased 0.15 acres of land by a registered deed No.1-7030 dated 11.11.1970 [Exbt.C] from one Nalini Mohan Das and further 0.08 acres of land from Nirendra Ch. Debnath [the predecessor of the defendants] vide sale deed No. 1-6942 dated 02.11.1970 [Exbt.D] and became the owner in possession of total 0.23 acres of land and out of the said property, he gifted 0.15 acres of land to the plaintiff, but, on 18.12.2005 suddenly the defendants illegally occupied a portion of the said land by raising fence and therefore, the prayer for recovery of possession has been made.

4. According to the plaintiff, in the year 1997, the defendants filed a suit bearing No.T.S.26 of 1997 against them claiming right, title and interest in the suit land and recovery of possession and the said suit was partly decreed and partly dismissed by Ld. Trial Court. Against the said judgment and decree, the appeal bearing No.T.A.18 of 2005 was preferred and the learned first appellate court dismissed the entire suit with the findings that the plaintiff had right, title and interest in the entire suit land. Thereafter, the said judgment and decree were not challenged by the defendants in the higher forum making it binding on them.

5. The defendants in their written statement have challenged the ownership of the plaintiff in the entire suit land. According to them, one Nagendra Chandra Debnath and another Nirendra Chandra Debnath [the predecessors of the present defendants] were the owners in possession of total land area 0.45 acres of C.S. Plot No.2265 [0.30 acres], C.S. Plot No.2266 [0.10 acres] and C.S Plot 2269 [0.05 acres] of Mouja - Panisagar having 50% share each therein. Said Nagendra Chandra Debnath sold out 0.19 acres of land vide registered deed No.1-6841 dated 08.12.1967 [Exbt.A] to one Nalini Mohan Das and said Nalini Mohan Das, again sold out 0.17 acres of land therefrom to their predecessor Nirendra Ch. Debnath vide sale deed No.1-7233 dated 10.10.1968 [Exbt.B] and thereafter he again sold out 0.15 acres of land to Thakurmani Debnath vide sale deed No.1-7030 dated 11.11.1970 [Exbt.C] though he had only transferable interest of 0.02 acres of land therein after his such transfer of said 0.17 acres of land to Nirendra Ch. Debnath. They also stated that said Nirendra Ch. Debnath sold out 0.08 acres of land to Thakurmani Debnath vide registered deed No.1-6942 dated 02.11.1970 [Exbt.D] and thereafter, said Thakurmani Debnath transferred 0.15 acres of land to Satsang as claimed by the plaintiff though he was not the rightful





























































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top