SMRITI SAHA Vs. MANIK DEBNATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. S. Deb, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Koomar Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as Mr. N. Chowdhury, learned counsel, who has provided assistance to this court as he had entered in the appearance as the counsel for the respondents in a proceeding connected to this second appeal.

(2.) This court finds that both the trial court and the appellate court ignored certain parts of the pleadings while appreciating the evidence. As a result, certain observation has been made which has generated confusion. Ultimately by the judgment dtd. 8/8/2018 delivered in Title Appeal 21 of 2016 filed by the defendant-respondents herein in the court of the District Judge, Gomati Judicial District, Udaipur Tripura the judgment dtd. 6/10/2016 delivered in Title Suit 20 of 2015 by the Civil Judge (Senior Division) Udaipur has been reversed. It surfaces from the records that the courts below have dealt with the factual aspects differently qua the evidence. The major controversy hinges on identification of the suit land. The first appellate court has observed while reversing the finding of the trial court as follows:

(3.) Further it has been observed that the main issue according to the first appellate court in the suit is not whether the defendant appellants are in possession of the suit land but whether the defendants are running their shops on the jote land of the plaintiffs or on khas land. If it is on the jote land of the plaintiffs, then they are liable to be evicted irrespective of whether they are the trespassers or tenants or permissive possessors. But if they are carrying on their business on Govt. khas land then the plaintiffs have no case and no locus to press for their eviction. Observing thus, the first appellate court has returned the finding that the trial court has proceeded on wrong premises in so far as it concluded that the plaintiffs have right and title on the suit property.