KALPANA SARKAR Vs. AKHIL DATTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This present appeal is filed against the Judgment and Decree dated, 10/4/2019, passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, West Tripura, Agartala, in T.A. 09 of 2018 arising out of the Judgment and Decree dtd. 22/2/2018 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Court No.1, Agartala, West Tripura in T.S.53 of 2015.

(2.) The facts of the case, in brief, are that respondent as plaintiff filed a title suit claiming the right title and interest on the suit land and for recovery of possession in respect of the suit land against the defendant-appellant for land measuring 6 gandas comprised in khatian No. 5951 of old CS Plot No. 7098(p), Hal CS plot No. 25610 under Mouja- Badharghat, sheet No. 5, Tehsil- Badharghat. According to the plaintiff-respondent, he is the owner of the suit land, and on the basis of title deed No. 1-7109 dtd. 9/10/2007 executed by the vendor-defendant, he took possession of the same. He applied for the mutation but the same was not granted in his favour. On 18/5/2008 when the respondent-plaintiff intended to fix pillars on his land, at that time he was resisted by the defendant-appellant, her sons and daughter, and other persons. According to the Plaintiff-respondent, he was dispossesed on 9/10/2008. In spite of his effort, he could not enter into the suit land. Hence, the Plaintiff-respondent filed that instant T.S. No.53 of 2015.

(3.) The defendant-appellant therein contested the suit by filing a written statement denying the assertions of the plaintiff-respondent. Defendant-appellant therein further took the plea that since she was unable to read and write, the plaintiff-respondent by applying fraud took the thump impression of her on the sale deed wherein she understood that she would sell 2 gandas of land for a consideration of Rs.2,40,000.00. Later when the plaintiff-respondent tried to occupy suit land measuring 6 gandas, at that time, it came to her knowledge that in place of 2 gandas collusively 6 gandas was written. Further according to the defendant-appellant therein she was/is in possession of the suit land. Furthermore, the plaintiff-respondent did not make further payment as per the sale deed. It was the plaintiff-respondent to prove the sale. Further, the mandatory provision of Sec. 68 of the Evidence Act was not complied with. The Learned Court below decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff-respondent vide judgment and decree dtd. 22/2/2018.