HEMANTA GHOSH Vs. MALATI BALA GHOSH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. A. Sengupta, Learned counsel appearing for the appellants as well as Mr. D.K. Daschoudhury, Learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

(2.) This is an appeal under Sec. 96 of the CPC assailing the judgment dtd. 31/3/2022 passed by Learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Court No.1, Gomati District, Udaipur, Tripura in connection with Case No.Title Suit 28 of 2019 decreeing the suit in favour of the plaintiff-respondent.

(3.) At the time of hearing, Mr. A. Sengupta, Learned counsel appearing for the appellants referred pages-9 and 10 of the judgment i.e. last part of para-7 of the judgment and submitted that the Learned Trial Court below came to the observation that the suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff would not be barred by the principle of res judicata, all though the subsequent suit was barred by the res judicata as because the present appellants all along are/were in possession of the suit land but the respondent-plaintiff suppressing the fact of having not in possession filed the suit which was numbered as T.S.21 of 2008 and the said suit was dismissed. After that, she preferred an appeal which was numbered as T.A. 34 of 2010 and the Learned First Appellate Court reversed the judgment of the Learned Trial Court and declared the right, title and interest of the respondent-plaintiff. Challenging the same, the present appellants preferred second appeal before the High Court and this High Court by judgment dtd. 18/8/2016 passed in RSA 29 of 2013 was pleased to upheld the order of the Learned First Appellate Court. But thereafter, the respondent-plaintiff manufacturing a false and fabricated story of dispossession again filed the suit seeking recovery of possession and the Learned Trial Court by the impugned judgment partly allowed the suit in favour of the respondent-plaintiff which is erroneous and not in accordance with law.