Judgment & Order

This appeal under Section 100 of CPC is preferred challenging the judgment dated 16.08.2022 and decree dated 17.08.2022 delivered by Learned District Judge, South Tripura, Belonia in connection with case No. Title Appeal

No.16 of 2019. By the said judgment, Learned First Appellate Court was pleased to affirm the judgment dated 03.07.2019 and decree dated 15.07.2019 delivered by Learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Belonia, South Tripura in connection with case No.T.S.24 of 2012.

02. assisted by Learned Counsel Mr. S. Datta for the appellant and also heard Learned Senior Counsel, Mr. S. M. Chakraborty assisted by Learned Counsel, Ms. P. Chakraborty for the respondent No.1. None appeared on behalf of the respondent No.2 because as per order dated 15.03.2023, the appeal processed ex-parte against the said respondent. Before proceeding with the merit of this appeal, preferred under Section 100 of CPC, let us discuss about the subject matter of the suit filed by the respondent No.1 as plaintiff before the Learned Trial Court.

03. Learned Trial Court in short was that the mother-in-law of the respondent-plaintiff namely Arati Bala Roy (Muhuri) got 1 kani 5 gandas i.e. 50 decimals of land as gift from one Nirmala Sundari Majumder under Mouja and T.K. Sarashima, Khatian No.615, 312 appertaining to C.S. Plot No.1291 and 1292 and the said mother-in-law of the respondent-plaintiff was in peaceful possession of the suit land. The said deed of gift was executed on 08.10.1975, thereafter, after the death of said Arati Bala Roy, the property left by her was amicably partitioned amongst the legal heirs of said Arani Bala Roy (Muhuri). One of the legal heirs of said Arati Bala Roy, namely Smt. Chandana Bala Roy as per family settlement, got said 50 decimals of land in her share and on attaining majority said Chandana Bala Roy sold those .50 decimals of land in favour of the respondent-plaintiff and handed over possession of the same to her. But the defendant No.1 i.e. the present appellant herein, being the brother-in-law of the respondent-plaintiff disturbed her possession over the suit land measuring 0.6 decimal on the plea that he has purchased the said land from one Smt. Suniti Bala Majumder (Chowdhury), daughter of Nirmala Sundari Majumder (since dead). It was the further case of the respondent-plaintiff that after execution of gift deed for 6 decimals of land to the Arati Bala Roy, said Nirmala Sundari Majumder was never been in possession of the said land. However, said Nirmala Sundari Majumder somehow managed to incorporate her name in the revenue records and executed a Will in favour of her daughter Suniti Majumder, who later on sold the suit land i.e. 6 decimals of land by sale deed No.1-50 of 2009 to the defendant No.1 i.e. the appellant herein. On 25.07.2008 the appellant herein tried to occupy said 6 decimals land, but failed. Again on 12.06.2009, he tried to take possession of the said land but failed and after that the plaintiff filed a suit which was numbered as T.S.34 of 2009 for declaration and for injunction and after that the said suit was withdrawn on 29.02.2012. It was the further case of the respondent- plaintiff that on 21.11.2009, the appellant forcefully dispossessed the respondent-plaintiff from the suit land. The present appellant as respondent No.1 appeared before the Learned Trial Court and submitted written statement, wherein it was mentioned that the suit was not maintainable for non-joinder of necessary party and the respondent- plaintiff has/had got no right, title and interest over the suit land and there was no cause of action.

It was further asserted that Nirmala Sundari

Majumder did not execute any deed of gift in favour of Arati Bala Roy, nor gave any possession to said Arati Bala Roy. He also denied the partition of the land. It was further submitted that he purchased the suit land from one Suniti Bala Majumder by a registered sale deed. Hence, by the WS, the defendant No.1 i.e. the appell