AMAL DEBNATH Vs. KHAGORIJAN TEA COMPANY LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. D. R. Choudhury, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant. None has appeared for the respondents.

(2.) This is an appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 from the judgment dated 28.05.2018 from which the decree dated 07.06.2018 has been issued by the Additional District Judge, Court No.5, West Tripura, Agartala in Title Appeal No.43 of 2014 titled as Amal Debnath vs. M/s Khagorijan Tea Company Limited and Others. The suit was instituted by the appellant herein being Title Suit 43 of 2012 in the court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Court No.1, West Tripura, Agartala. The said suit was dismissed in terms of the judgment dated 31.07.2014. The said judgment was challenged in the Title Appeal No.43 of 2014. The said appeal has also failed. Now, the judgment of dismissal, concurrent in nature, is challenged in this appeal. For purpose of appreciating the appeal, the brief facts as stated by the appellant in the plaint may be introduced.

(3.) According to the plaintiff-appellant, Khagorijan Tea Company Limited (KTC Limited, in short) is the owner of the Malabati Tea Estate and Kalyanpur Tea Estate at Bagan Bazar under West Tripura District at present under Khowai District. The suit land is part of Malabati Tea Estate of KTC Limited measuring 12 acres situated at Mouja-Bikramnagar pertaining to Khatian No.856/18, CS Plot No.2642, corresponding old Plot No.2014. According to the plaintiff-appellant Joy Krishna Debnath, his father, entered in the possession over the suit land when it was vacant and full of jungles and adjacent to his jote land which was originally under Rehabilitation Department, Government of Tripura. His father was growing mesta and other crops in that land. Later on, he planted Sal, Teak and other trees including some fruit-bearing trees. Subsequently, he made tea plantation over most of the areas [the suit land]. After death of his father, the plaintiff-appellant continued to possess the said land and he had also nurtured the plantation, raised by his father. His father had possessed the land constructively. Till 06.02.1966 continued in the possession defying any claim of any other person at large. According to the plaintiff-appellant, the defendant-respondents namely M/s KTC Limited had tried to take forceful possession of the suit, land from the plaintiffs. At the time of filing of the suit the said land was recorded in the name of KTC Limited as the owner. The respondent No.2 had on several occasions and lastly on 02.06.1998 failed to take the forceful possession of the suit land and filed a suit being Title suit 40/1998 against the plaintiff-appellant herein, alleging that on 02.06.1998, 08.06.1998 and also on 05.07.1998 the plaintiff-appellant being the defendant of the said suit tried to take forceful possession of the suit land. The said suit was finally dismissed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Court No.1, West Tripura, Agartala on the solitary ground that the suit was not filed by the owner, KTC Limited. The suit was filed by the defendant-respondent No.2 on behalf of the defendant-respondent No.1, KTC Limited. As there was no proper authorisation or delegation of power in respect of representation the said suit was dismissed on 04.06.2001. It has been also admitted that the defendant-respondent did not prefer any appeal against the said judgment dated 04.06.2001 as delivered in Title Suit 40 of 1998. The father of the plaintiff-appellant died after about three years from that judgment. After death of his father, the plaintiff-appellant, has been possessing the suit land within knowledge of the defendant-respondents by raising tea plantation and also by planting other valuable trees including the fruit-bearing trees asserting in hostility. Thus, during the lifetime of his father, they denied the right, title and interest of the defendant-respondents, thus the statutory limitation for recovery has expired.