LOKNATH BHOWMIK Vs. MANI GOPAL ROY BARMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under sec. 100 of the CPC arises from the concurrent finding of fact relating to valid execution of the Will, purportedly executed by one Alpana Roy Barman (Karmakar) wife of the first respondent and as recorded in the judgment dtd. 17/12/2018 passed by the First Appellate Court [the court of the Additional District Judge No.2, West Tripura, Agartala] in Title Appeal 57 of 2016. Needless to mention that by the said judgment dtd. 17/12/2018, the First Appellate Court has affirmed the judgment dtd. 23/7/2016 delivered in Title Suit 03 of 2014 by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Court No.1, Agartala, West Tripura.

(2.) By the said judgment dtd. 23/7/2016, the suit instituted by the appellant for declaration of right, title and interest over the suit land as described in Schedule A which include the schedules B and C. The ownership of the suit land has been claimed by the appellant by virtue of the Will dtd. 22/11/1989 executed by one Alpana Roy Barman (Karmakar), the testatrix. Along with the declaration as aforestated consequential reliefs of permanent injunction and recovery of possession of the land as described in the Schedule B (the part of the Schedule A land) by evicting the tenant, the respondent No.9. Both the courts below have recorded their finding that suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of the Will as stated could not be removed by propounder (the plaintiff) and as such no reliance can be placed on the said Will for purpose of determining the title over the suit land. It is admitted that the appellant was never in physical possession of the suit land. The eviction of the respondent No.9 is therefore sought on the basis of the purported appeal.

(3.) At the time of admission, the following substantial question of law had been formulated by this court for purpose of hearing this appeal by the order dtd. 27/3/2019: