RABINDRA NARAYAN NATH Vs. SANKARI DEBNATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This present second appeal has been filed under Sec. 100 of CPC by the appellants herein against the judgment and decree dtd. 2/12/2019 passed by the learned District Judge, West Tripura, Agartala in Title Appeal No.64 of 2016 reversing the judgment and decree dtd. 12/9/2016 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Court No.1, West Tripura Agartala.

(2.) The facts of the case in brief leading to this present second appeal are that one Indra lal Debnath i.e., the predecessor in interest of the plaintiff-respondents Nos. 1 to 4 was the owner in possession of 'A' schedule land on the strength of registered sale deed bearing No. 1-5800, dtd. 29/5/1972. Similarly, the predecessor of plaintiff-respondents No. 5(a) to 5(e) also claimed to be the owner in possession of the 'B' schedule land on the strength of the registered sale deed bearing No. 1- 5798, dtd. 29/5/1972. Both the sale deeds were executed by Subhadra Sundari Debi (now deceased), the predecessor in interest of the appellant No.1(a) and 1(b). After a few days of execution of aforesaid sale deeds, one Radha Gobinda Debnath as plaintiff had filed TS. 68 of 1972 after withdrawal of TS.20 of 1970 against the said Subhadra Sundari Debi and predecessor of the plaintiff– respondents Nos. 1 to 4 and the plaintiff-respondents No. 5(a) to 5(e) as defendants claiming right, title over the four kanis and odd land including the suit land. Due to the pendency of the said suit, the predecessor of the plaintiff-respondents did not get their land mutated, however all along they were in possession. Ultimately, the said suit was compromised before the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court, Bench at Agartala during the pendency of Second Appeal vide., SA 25 of 1985. Accordingly, a compromise decree dtd. 28/2/1995 was prepared on the strength of which said Subhadra Sundari Debi had got 60 % share of the entire four kanis of land including the suit land, and said Radha Gobinda Debnath got the remaining 40 % share. Thereafter, the predecessor of the plaintiff-respondents asserted that said Subadha Sundari Devi tried to take possession of the suit land and to sell most of the share to some financially sound person, etc. for which Indra Lal Debnath and predecessor of respondent No. 5(a) to 5(e) had filed T.S.02 of 2002 which was withdrawn with liberty to file afresh and thereafter T.S. 51 of 2005 was filed.

(3.) The learned Trial Court form the following issues for adjudication of the suit:-