Advocates:
['Mrs S CHAKRABORTY', 'TANMAY DEBBARMA', '', 'Mr PARAMARTHA DATTA']

Page - 1 of 13

HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA

AGARTALA

RSA 8 OF 2018

Sri Anil Kumar Singha,

Son of Late Nitai Singha,

Resident of vill- Jarultali,

PS-Kailashahar, District-Unakoti,

Tripura.

---- Appellant.

Versus

Sri Joy Kumar Singha,

Son of Gournitai Singha

Resident of vill-Jarultali, PS-Kailashahar,

Unakoti, Tripura.

---Respondent.

For Appellant(s)

: Mr. K. N. Bhattacharjee, Sr. Advocate.

Mrs. S. Chakraborty, Advocate.

For Respondent(s)

: Mr. T. Debbarma, Advocate.

Mr. A. Chakraborty, Advocate.

Date of hearing &

delivery of Judgment and order : 08.01.2021

Whether fit for reporting

: Yes

HON’BLE MR JUSTICE ARINDAM LODH

Judgment & Order (Oral)

Heard Mr. K.N.Bhattacharjee, learned Sr. counsel assisted by

Mrs. S. Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. Also

heard Mr. T. Debbarma and Ms. A. Chakraborty, learned counsels

appearing for the respondent.

Page - 2 of 13

2.

Brief facts are that the present appellant who was the original

plaintiff has instituted the suit for declaration of easementary right over the

suit pathway against the defendant-respondent. The defendant-respondent

being noticed had contested the suit by filing written statement. Issues

were framed on the basis of the pleadings. Evidences were adduced by

both the parties. Some documents were exhibited.

3.

Having heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsels

appearing for the parties to the lis, the learned Civil Judge, Jr. Division,

Kailashahar, North Tripura had dismissed the suit of the plaintiff declaring

that he did not acquire any easementary right over the land described in the

schedule of the plaint.

4.

Being aggrieved, the plaintiff had preferred appeal before the

learned District Judge, Unakoti District. The learned District Judge after

hearing the parties had upheld the judgment passed by the learned Civil

Judge, Jr. Division and thus dismissed the appeal affirming the judgment

of the learned trial Court. Hence, this second appeal before this Court.

5.

The case has been listed today for hearing, but, after going

through the records, I find that at the time of admission of the present

appeal, the Court did not formulate any substantial question of law, as

Page - 3 of 13

such, with the consent of the learned counsels appearing for the parties,

following substantial question of law has been formulated.

Whether

the

courts

below

misconstrued

and

misapplied the provision of Section 25 of the Limitation Act

in computing 20 years to be a period ending within 2 years

next before the institution of the suit where in the claim to

which such period relates is contested is perverse is a

substantial question of law?

6.

Mr. K.N.Bhattacharjee, learned Sr. counsel has confined his

argument within this substantial question of law as formulated by this

Court.

7.

Main submission as advanced by Mr. Bhattacharjee, learned

Sr. counsel for the appellant is that learned Court has misconstrued the

provision of Section 25 of the Limitation Act, 1963 which leads me to

extract and reproduce the said provision as under:

“25. Acquisition of easement by prescription.—

(1) Where the access and use of light or air to and for any

building have been peaceably enjoyed therewith as an easement,

and as of right, without interruption, and for twenty years, and

where any way or watercourse or the use of any water or any other

easement (whether affirmative or negative) has been peaceably

and openly enjoyed by any person claiming title thereto as an

easement and as of right without interruption and for twenty years,

Page - 4 of 13

the right to such access and use of light or air, way, watercourse,

use of water, or other easement shall be absolute and indefeasible.

(2) Each of the said periods of twenty years shall be taken

to be a period ending within two years next before the institut