PURNALAXMI DEBBARMA Vs. SHYAMACHARAN DEBBARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All the five appeals aforenoted have been directed against the common judgment dated 9-9-99 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, West Tripura, Agartala.

(2.) The Plaintiff-Respondents instituted six suits, namely, Title Suit No. 150 of 1985, Title Suit No. 151 of 1985, Title Suit No. 152 of 1985, Title Suit No. 153 of 1985, Title Suit No. 154 of 1985 and Title Suit No. 155 of 1985, against the Defendant-Appellant and four others for declaration of their title over the suit land and for recovery of possession by evicting the Appellant and others. Late Harikanta Debbarma was the original owner of the suit land. The said Harikanta Debbarma during his life time amicably divided his property amongst his son, wife and two daughters. After the death of Harikanta Debbarma, his son, wife and daughters stepped on to his shoes to possess their respective allotted land. The wife and two daughters of late Harikanta Debbarma possessed their respective land jointly, whereas his son Sunil Debbarma possessed his land separately. Sunil Debbarma sold his allotted land to different persons and the wife and daughter of late Harikanta Debbarma jointly sold their shares to the Plaintiff-Respondent by registered deed of sale on 20-1-82. The Plaintiff-Respondent after purchase of the land from the wife and daughter of late Harikanta Debbarma mutated their names in respect of their purchased land without any objection from any quarter whatsoever and started possessing the land without any disturbance. The Plaintiff- Respondent alleged that the Defendant-Appellants along with her husband and three sons illegally trespassed into the suit land which were purchased by the Plaintiff-Respondent and forcibly dispossessed them there from. The Plaintiff-Respondent having no alternative instituted six suits as aforenoted against the Defendant-Appellant and others seeking relief of declaration of their title over the suit land and for recovery of khas possession.

(3.) The Appellants entered appearance and contested the suit by filing written statement alleging therein that they only mortgaged the suit land to the Respondent. But when the Appellant and others came forward to repay the loan amount, the Respondent refused to accept the same and also refused to concede recovery of the suit land in favour of the Defendant-Appellants. The Defendant-Appellants further stated that they sought justice in the Panchayat but the Plaintiff-Respondent did not obey the direction of the Panchayat. The Appellant further raised the plea that the suit filed by the Plaintiff-Respondent is not maintainable in terms of the provision of Section 14 of Tripura Agricultural Indebtedness Relief Act, 1979 since the land in question was mortgaged as defined under the Transfer of Property Act. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed the following issues: