HARADHAN CHOUDHURY Vs. SUKHAMOY SEN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the plaintiffs under Section 100 of the C.P.C. questioning the legality of the judgment and decree dated 29.06.2007 and 06.07.2007 respectively delivered by the Additional District Judge, South Tripura, Belonia in Title Appeal No.11 of 2007. By the said judgment and decree dated 29.06.2007 and 06.07.2007 respectively, hereinafter referred to as the impugned judgment and decree, the judgment and decree dated 26.03.2007 and 30.03.2007 respectively delivered by the Civil Judge, Jr. Division, Belonia, South Tripura in Title Suit No.33 of 2005 has been interfered with and partly modified.

(2.) The undisputed fact unfolded from the records is that the plaintiffs by way of allotment had acquired the right, title and interest over the land measuring 1.54 acres pertaining to plot No.2795(corresponding to old plot No.5089-P) comprised in the Khatian No.1781 at Mouza Debipur under Belonia Sub-Division hereinafter referred to as the suit land. In the year 1974, the plaintiff No.1, the appellant No.1 herein and his brother Sri Nityananda Choudhury had come into possession over the said land and they had reclaimed the land for purpose of its utility.

(3.) In the year 1987 on consideration of the possession of the plaintiff No.1 and his brother they were allowed to apply for allotment. Sri Nityananda Choudhury, the brother of the plaintiff No.1 got a government job before the land was allotted as per their prayer. On consideration thereof, he relinquished the possessory right of the suit land in favour of the plaintiffs. As consequence thereupon, the land was allotted in favour of the plaintiff No.1 by Allotment Order No.1009 dated 23.12.1996. The land was mutated in the name of the plaintiff No.1 and a new Khatian being No. 181 was opened showing the plaintiff as the rayat in possession by way of allotment. The defendants did not dispute that aspect. The defendants allegedly on 22.07.2005 had made attempt to dispossess the plaintiffs from the suit land for purpose of planting rubber stamps. But for the resistance offered by the plaintiffs their attempt could not succeed. Out of apprehension, the petitioner filed the suit for declaration of right, title and interest over the suit land and for perpetual injunction for restraining the defendants from disturbing the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land. It is to be noted that the plaintiff No.2 is the wife of the plaintiff No.1.