PANNA LAL GHOSH Vs. NANI GOPAL GHOSH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both the letterspatent appeals being directed against the common Judgment and Order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court are taken up for consideration together and are being disposed of by the present Judgment and Order.

(2.) The appellants in LPA No. 13/1997, i.e., Sri Pannalal Ghosh and others instituted a suit being Title Suit No.1/1988(earliar No. T.S.12/1976) in the Court of learned District Judge, North Tripura, Kailashahar praying for a declaration that the deed of "Nadabi"(deed of relinquishment) executed by the defendant No.1 on 28.8.1990 in favour of the defendant Nos.2 and 3 in the suit is null and void and inoperative in law. Further consequential relief for declaration of the plaintiffs' right, title and interest in the land described in the Schedule-A to the plaint and for recovery of possession of the land mentioned in Schedule-B to the plaint were prayed for by the plaintiffs in the suit.

(3.) The case of the plaintiffs', in short, is that Late Akhil Chandra Ghosh, the predecessor in interest of the plaintiffs, owned vast landed properties and that after the death of Late Akhil Chandra Ghosh, the plaintiffs along with defendant No.1, who is the eldest son of late Akhil Chandra Ghosh inherited the properties in equal share. The plaintiff Nos. 2 to 9 in the suit appointed the defendant No. 1 as their constituted attorney to look after their inherited properties and for the said purpose a power of attorney was executed by the plaintiff Nos. 2 to 9 in favour of the defendant No. 1 on 9.2.65. By the aforesaid power of attorney dated 9.2.65, the plaintiff No.1, who was the second son was also appointed as the constituted attorney of the other plaintiffs along with defendant No. 1. However, the plaintiff No. 1 on 18.7.70 executed a power of attorney in favour of the defendant No.1. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the defendant No. 1 fraudulently and in collusion with the defendant Nos. 2 and 3 executed a Nadabi deed in favour of the said defendant Nos.2 and 3 on 28.8.70 after taking a sum of Rs.10,501/- and on the strength of the aforesaid deed of Nadabi, the defendant Nos. 2 and 3 forcibly entered and occupied the land mentioned in Schedule-B to the plaint. The plaintiffs thereafter on enquiry could obtain a copy of the deed of Nadabi on 7.8.73 and in the aforesaid circumstances instituted the suit in question claiming the reliefs earlier stated.