MAHAMAYA GHOSH Vs. NARESH CHANDRA GHOSH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is directed against Judgment and Decree dated 03.08.2004 passed by learned District Judge in Title Appeal No. 39 of 1993 whereunder the learned District Judge dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants and upheld the Judgment & Decree dated 29.05.1993 passed by learned Assistant District Judge, Court No. 1, Agartala in T.S. No. 11 of 1971.

(2.) HEARD learned senior counsel, Mr. A.K. Bhowmik for the appellants and learned senior counsel, Mr. D. Chakraborty for the respondents.

(3.) THE defendants by filing written statement contested the suit denying the averments made in the plaint and inter alia pleaded that Rani Lalana Devi was never owner of the suit land as a Talukdar and transaction between Rani Lalana Devi and Rakhal Chandra Ghosh by dint of the lease deed was a fraudulent, collusive, void and colourable transaction and the plaintiff acquired no right, title, interest by dint of that lease deed dated 04.10.1958. It is further pleaded by the defendants that Jnan Ghosh, father of defendant No. 1 Birendra Chandra Ghosh and Kanai Ghosh, brother of Jnan Ghosh jointly came to Agartala from Dhaka about 80 years ago and started their profession supplying milk, butter, ghee, card etc. to the Palace of the Maharaja as well as the Temples and thereby became closure to the Royal family. Having satisfied in their services, Dewan Nabadweep Bahadur of the Maharaja of Tripura verbally allowed Jnan Chandra Ghosh and Kanai Ghosh to reside on the suit land described in the Schedule A of the plaint as their permanent resident. It was a fellow land full of jungles and both Jnan Ghosh and Kanai Ghosh cleared the jungles of the suit land and constructed their houses and was carrying on their business of milk, card, butter, ghee etc. supplying the same to the Rajbari and Temples. Later on, they brought the plaintiff, a relative and engaged him as an employee to look after their business and Rakhal Chandra Ghosh also residing on the suit land and he was allowed to construct his house in a small part of the suit land and he started residing there and gradually, after his marriage, he started his own business and subsequently, the shrewd and cunning plaintiff created false record of right in collusion with the settlement staff in his name against which the defendants raised objection. The plaintiff was never a permissive possessor or a tenant in the suit land and he has no right, title, interest or possession in the suit land. Rani Lalana Devi never owned the suit land and had no right to permanently settle the suit land in favour of the plaintiff and the deed of lease executed between Rani Lalana Devi and Rakhal Chandra Ghosh, the plaintiff, was a false deed created to get the suit land. The defendants therefore prayed for dismissal the suit.