HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA AGARTALA RSA No.24 of 2024

1. Sri Rajkumar Nath @ Rajkumar Debnath (60), S/o Lt. Ramdhan Nath @ Ramdhan Debnath.

2. Sri Prajesh Nath @ Prajesh Debnath (37), S/o Sri Rajkumar Nath @ Rajkumar Debnath. 3. Sri Rahul Nath @ Rahul Debnath (19), S/o Sri Rajkumar Nath @ Rajkumar Debnath.

4. Sri Amitava Nath @ Amitava Debnath (38), S/o Sri Rajkumar Nath @ Rajkumar Debnath. 5. Sri Ranjit Nath @ Ranjit Debnath (36), S/o Sri Rajendra Nath @ Rajendra Debnath.

All are resident of Rowa (Near Rowa AWC), Rowabazar B.O. Post Office P.S.-Panisagar, Dist-North Tripura, PIN-799260.

……Appellant(s)

Versus Sri Durga Charan Nath, S/o Late Kali Charan Nath, Rowa near Rowa AWC, Rowabazar B.O.

Post Office P.S.-Panisagar, Dist-North Tripura, PIN-799260.

……Respondent(s)

For Appellant(s) : Mr. A. Acharjee, Advocate.

Ms. M. Basu, Advocate.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. S. Bhattacharjee, Advocate.

Date of hearing and delivery : 31^th January, 2025.

of Judgment & Order Whether fit for reporting : NO.

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. DATTA PURKAYASTHA JUDGMENT & ORDER (Oral)

Heard Mr. A. Acharjee, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr. S. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

2. The claim of the plaintiff (respondent herein) is that he is the owner of the suit land, measuring 1.30 acre as described in schedule A of the plaint, by way of purchase from, one Sri Ranjan Kumar Debnath and Smt. Renu Nath, by a registered sale deed No.1- 2177 dated 08.08.2022 (Exhibit-3) and the suit land after such purchase was also mutated in his name vide Khatian No.1048. Thereafter, on 20.12.2009, the defendants requested the plaintiff to allow them to stay in the suit land with assurance to vacate the same within two years. Accordingly, they were allowed to stay there. But after expiry of said two years when they were requested to vacate the same they denied and ultimately the suit was filed. The defendants No.1 and No.2 (Sri Rajendra Nath and Sri Rajkumar Nath) contested the case by filing written statement, stating that originally the suit land was Khas land and since the time of their father they were possessing total 1.69 acre of land, out of which the Government allotted 1.56 acre of land to them leaving 0.13 acre, though they were in possession of the same and till filing of the suit they were maintaining possession in said 0.13 acre of land. According to them, said 0.13 acre of land is the suit land mentioned under schedule I and II of which the recovery of possession has been sought for by the plaintiff.

3. Learned Trial Court dismissed the suit mainly on the ground that due to absence of boundary description of the schedule A land, the plaintiff failed to prove entitlement to recover possession of suit land described in schedule I and II being part of schedule A land.

4. However, Learned First Appellate Court after setting aside the said judgment of the Learned Trial Court decreed the suit with exhaustive discussions on the evidences as placed in the record by the parties. According to Learned First Appellate court, as per the Order VII Rule 3 of CPC it is sufficient if the plaint contains a description of the property sufficient to identify it, either by way of boundaries or by the numbers as mentioned in the record of settlement or survey. Learned First Appellate Court also observed that there was no dispute raised by the defendants about the identity of the suit land and schedule A land could be identified by only plot number without any boundary description. The plea of adverse possession by the defendants was turned down by both the Learned First Appellate Court and also by the Learned Trial Court.

5. During the hearing before this Court, Mr. Acharjee, learned counsel submits that he is also not pressing the plea of adverse possession before this Court. Regarding the derivation of ownership over the suit land by the vendors of the plaintiff, the Learned First Appellate Court relied on Exhibit-5, i.e., old Khatian No.1048 and it was observed t