SUDHANGSHU MOHAN DEB Vs. NIRODA SUNDARI DEBIDHUP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This litigation has a chequered history. Land comprised in Jote No. 145 standing in the name of one Sonatan Dhopi was acquired by the then Maharaja of Tripura in the year 1347 T.E. corresponding to 1937 A.D. for a public purpose viz. construction of motor stand and pathway etc. It was found that the acquired land was in excess of the requirement, therefore, the excess land was decided to be settled in favour of tenants. One Dhirendrajit Singh Roy (predecessor of the appellant) and Jagabandhu Dhopi, who is said to be nephew of original owner Sonatan Dhopi (predecessor of the respodents), were the applicants for settlement of the excess land. Application of Jagabandhu Dhopi was rejected while that of Dhirandrajit Singh Roy was accepted and a registered patta granting Takshishi Taluki rights in his favour was executed. In the year 1949 Jagabandhu Dhopi, however, encroached upon the land, subject-matter of the patta which led Dhirandrajit Singh Roy to file a suit for eviction being Miscellaneous Case No. 141 of 1956 in the Court of District Magistrate-cum-Collector. During the pendency of the suit Dhirendrajit Singh Roy sold the suit land to Sudhanghshu Mohan Deb (since deceased and represented by LRs), the appellant herein, on 10th December, 1957. The name of the appellant was duly substituted in place of Dhirendrajit Singh Roy in the eviction suit. Vide order dated 27th June, 1958 the District Magistrate directed the SDO to arrange delivery of possession of portion of the suit land which was vacant to the plaintiff and for the rest the appellant was directed to move Civil Court for recovery of possession. Dhopi preferred an appeal against the said order before the Chief Commissioner. The Chief Commissioner directed appellant to file a civil suit for the relief of possession of the suit land. On 30th June, 1959 the appellant filed Title Suit No. 47 of 1962 for declaration of Takshishi Taluki right and for recovery of possession. The said suit was decreed on 25th March, 1963. The appeal filed by Dhopi against the decree was dismissed on 28th April, 1965. Dhopi filed second appeal before the Judicial Commissioner. However on 28th May, 1965, the appellant took possession of the suit land in execution of the decree that was passed in his favour.

(2.) On 25th October, 1961 the Tripura Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") was notified. The said Act came into force with effect from 14th November, 1961. The Judicial Commissioner allowed the appeal filed by Dhopi on 12th April, 1971 holding that in view of the Act, the land in question vested in the Government and the appellant had lost his right to seek its possession. The Act contained provision in Sections 134 and 135 which had the effect of vesting all estates situated in a notified area in the Government free from all encumbrances. All right, title and interest of every intermediary in such estates got extinguished as a result of the statutory provision. In the appeal the present appellant had moved an application under Order 41, Rule 27 to bring on record by way of additional evidence the fact that after the vesting of the land in the Government, provisional khatiyan had been granted by the Government in his favour with respect to the suit land. The said application was, however, rejected on the ground that khatiyan was still provisional and was yet to be finalised. Section 136 of the Act entitles an intermediary to retain possession of the vested land subject to payment of land revenue directly to the Government. The Section is reproduced as under :

(3.) The appellant filed Title Suit No. 13 of 1980 on 13th March, 1980 for declaration of his title to the land and confirmation of possession in his favour and injunction. It was pleaded in the suit that khatiyan had been finalised in plaintiffs favour after contest and the plaintiff was paying land revenue to the Government for the suit land. Thus the plaintiff (appellant herein) pleaded that there was a fresh settlement of the suit land in his favour which entitled him to retain possession of the land. This new settlement by the Government was after vesting of the land in the Government in pursuance of Sections 134/135 of the Act. The final khatiyan had been granted on 22nd June, 1974. In view of the final khatiyan being granted in favour of the plaintiff, the plaintiff claimed that he had a valid right to possession of the suit land. Sonatan Dhopi had also filed an independent suit under Section 144 of the Code of Civil Procedure for restitution of possession of the suit land to him in view of the decree in execution whereof he was dispossessed having been set aside. Both the suits were clubbed together. The trial Court on 11th August, 1992 decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff, i.e. present appellant while the suit of the defendant-respondent for restitution of possession was dismissed. The judgment and decree of the trial Court was set aside by the lower appellate Court by its judgment dated 10th June, 1993. The suit for possession filed by the appellant was dismissed while the suit for restitution of possession filed by the respondent-judgment-debtor was decreed. The present appellant filed a second appeal against said judgment which was dismissed by the High Court by its impugned judgment dated 27th August, 1996. The present appeal has been filed in this background.