LAKSHIRAM DEB BARMA Vs. PRANTOSH DHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is plaintiff's appeal against the judgment and decree dated 12-3-1976 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, West Tripura, Agartala whereby the plaintiff's appeal against the judgment and decree dated 22-6-1972 passed by the learned Munsiff, Khowai, West Tripura was dismissed.

(2.) The plaintiff-appellant had filed the suit for declaration of title and possession over the suit land as raiyat and for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from entering the land in suit, on the allegations that the plaintiff's father had taken korta settlement of the land about forty years back from the father of defendants Nos. 2 and 3 late Abani Dhar who was the tenant of the land and had paid rent regularly. After the death of Abani Dhar, the plaintiff continued to pay rent to the defendant No.3. The plaintiff was recorded as korfa (under raiyat) under the defendants Nos. 2 and 3 the raiyats, who had not applied for reservation of the 'land' for their personal cultivation under Section 100(2) of the Tripura Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the plaintiff, the underraiyat, was extended the benefit under Section 120 of the Act and became raiyat. The defendants 2 and 3 in collusion with the defendant No.1 had not cleared the land revenue and the certificate proceeding was taken in which fraudulently and with material irregularity without the knowledge of the plaintiff auction sale was held and the defendant No.1 had obtained 'raiyat' right of defendants Nos. 2 and 3. The plaintiff had challenged the said certificate proceedings but in the meanwhile the defendant No.1 had instituted proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure hereinafter referred as 'the Code' which terminated with an order in favour of the defendant No.1. Hence the suit was filed.

(3.) The defendant No.1 contested the suit. It was denied that the plaintiff's father was a korfa and had acquired any rights in the land. It was pleaded that the land belonged to the father of the defendants Nos. 2 and 3 and on their failure to clear the land revenue their right was sold in auction and was purchased by the defendant No.1 who had obtained possession of the land. Subsequently there was proceeding under Section 145 of the Code which ended in his favour.