SABITRI CHANDA Vs. RAKESH DAS, WEST TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned senior counsel, Mr. K.N. Bhattacharji, assisted by learned counsel, Mrs. Y. Taneja(Bhattacharji) for the appellants and learned counsel, Mr. S. Lodh for the respondent.

(2.) THE respondent as plaintiff instituted Title Suit No.3 of 2010 seeking recovery of possession of the suit land described in the schedule of the plaint, evicting the defendants with removal of all obstructions created by the defendants, i.e. the appellants herein. It is not disputed that the suit land belonged to the plaintiff. The defendant -appellants contended that Sachindra Chandra Chanda, the predecessor of the defendant -appellants purchased the suit land from Kishori Mohan Das, the father of the plaintiff in the year 1978 by an unregistered deed dated 23.05.1978 on payment of a consideration of Rs.1,050/ - and the possession was handed over to the predecessor of the defendants, said Sachindra Chandra Chanda. The plaintiff contended that the predecessor of the defendants was allowed to reside on the suit land on condition to vacate as and when will be asked and accordingly on permission the predecessor of defendants was residing but when the defendants were asked to vacate the suit land they refused, and therefore the suit was instituted. Based on the pleadings of the parties the trial Court formulated five issues, namely

(3.) LEARNED counsel, Mr. Lodh has submitted that the defendants taken a plea of limitation in their written statement but there is nothing to show as to how the suit was barred by limitation. The defendants were permissive possessors of the suit land and when they refused to hand over the possession of the suit land, the plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of possession. No issue was agitated on the point of limitation in the course of trial. It is further submitted by Mr. Lodh, learned counsel that the doctrine of part performance is to be proved by adducing document itself but no document was proved to show that there was a deed executed between the plaintiff and the defendants regarding part performance. Under such circumstances, there is no substantial question of law to be formulated, and consequently there is no scope of affording any opportunity to the defendants to adduce evidence in the case.