TUSHAR KANTI GOSWAMI Vs. GOURANGA CHANDRA DEB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the order dated 29.01.2008 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Kailasahar, North Tripura, whereby he allowed the appeal filed by the defendant appellant, set aside the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court and remanded the case back to the learned trial Court for decision afresh.

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts of the case are, that the plaintiff filed a Civil suit in the trial Court. In the said suit, it was alleged that Nagendra kumar Das and Jatindra Mohan Das were the original owners of the suit land as described in Schedule-1 of the plaint. It was further alleged that the said two persons sold a portion of the suit land as described in Schedule-2 of the plaint to Sri Hasmat Ali on 11.03.1977. Subsequently Hasmat Ali on 28.03.1977 sold the land purchased by him, forming part of Schedule-2 to the plaintiff vide two separate sale deeds. Therefore, the plaintiffs became the owner of the suit land described in Schedule-2. The case of the plaintiffs further was that Nagendra kumar Das and Jatindra Mohan Das also sold the remaining half of their land forming part of Schedule-3 to the defendants no. 5 and 6 on 11.03.1977, but possession of the land was not handed over to the defendants no. 5 and 6. Thereafter, defendants no. 3 to 7 filed a petition against the plaintiff under Section 145 of Cr.P.C and in the said criminal proceedings the land forming part of Schedule-3 was attached, though according to the plaintiff he was in possession of the said land. The case of the plaintiff further, is that with a view to defeat the rights of the plaintiff, the defendants 5 and 6 executed bogus sale deeds in favour defendant no. 9 on 13.02.1980 and, thereafter, defendant no. 3 filed Title Suit no. 60 of 1994 in the Court of the learned Munsiff, Kailasahar, North Tripura, giving incorrect boundary and description of the suit land. Though temporary injunction in favour of the defendant no. 3 was granted by the learned Munsiff, Kailasahar, North Tripura, the plaintiff filed appeal against the said order of grant of temporary injunction and the learned Appellate Court vide order dated 05.04.1988 set aside the order of temporary injunction and directed that status-quo regarding the land be maintained. Taking advantage of this status-quo order, the defendants no. 1,2 and 3 took possession of the land and dispossessed the plaintiff. Hence, the suit for possession of the suit land.

(3.) The case of the defendants was that Suraj Ali and defendant no. 5 and 6 purchased 50% of the land recorded in Khatian no.61 on 11.03.1977 by a registered deed. Thereafter all of them i.e. defendant no. 5,6 and Suraj Ali as well as Nagendra kumar Das and Jatindra Mohan Das partitioned the suit land vide registered deed dated 31.11.1980. Thereafter, defendant no.1 and 2 purchased 10 gandas 2 kranta and 3 dhurs of land from Abdul Sattar and Manohar Ali, defendant no. 5 and 6. The defendant no. 1 and 2 sold land measuring 2 gandas 10 dhurs to defendant no. 8 and sold land measuring 1 ganda 10 dhurs to defendant no. 9, on 31.03.1986 and 28.03.1986, respectively. Therefore, according to the defendants, the defendant no. 8 became the owner of the land measuring 1 ganda 2 kranta 20 dhurs. It was also alleged that defendant no. 1 and 2 further sold land measuring 3 kara 1 kranta of land on 09.05.1988 to the wife of defendant no. 1 and 2 and also sold land measuring 0.05 satak to defendant no.11 on 04.09.1989. Thereafter, defendant no. 1 and 2 sold land measuring 1 ganda 10 dhurs to defendant no. 10 on 11.04.1986. The defendants, therefore, claimed that the suit land falls within their share and the plaintiff is not entitled to possession of any portion of the suit land.