SUKUMAR ROY Vs. RABINDRA CHANDRA ROY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal is directed against the judgment dated 27-5-1983 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, West Tripura, Agartala affirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned Sadar Munsiff, Agartala in Title Suit No. 146/75 decreeing the suit.

(2.) The case of the plaintiffs, shortly put, is that the suit land measuring 5 kanis 3 gandas 1 kara 4 dhurs of C. S. Plots Nos. 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 57, 58, 59 and 60 of Mouja Simna originally belonged to one Ananda Charan Chakraborty. On 15-3-55 A. D. Ananda Charan Chakraborty sold the suit land along with other lands to late Hriday Ch. Roy, the father of the plaintiffs and after purchase of the suit land along with other lands Hriday Ch. Roy was possessing the suit land by growing crops thereon. After the death of Hriday Ch. Roy plaintiffs became the owners and possessors of the suit land as heirs of late Hriday Ch. Roy. The plaintiff No. 1 Rabindra Chandra Roy being a Headmaster of one High School at Simlapal, District Bakura, West Bengal he used to stay at Simlapal. His other brother, namely plaintiff No. 2 is a medical practitioner. So, they engaged one Sonatan Naik and Soraman Naik of village Simna as labourers for cultivation and growing paddy in the suit land on behalf of them. It is stated that these two labourers used to grow paddy in the suit land on behalf of the plaintiffs and after harvesting the same they would handover the crops to the plaintiffs.

(3.) Alike previous years the said labourers also grew sail paddy in the suit land in the year 1381 B.S. and harvested the same in the month of Agrahayan, 1381 B. S. The plaintiffs, thus enjoyed the usufructs derived from the suit land. But on 28-7-75 at about 8.30 a.m. the defendants who are permissive possessions of C. S. Plots Nos. 54-55 belonging to the plaintiff attempted to cultivate the suit land by force but their such attempt was frustrated on account of timely resistance by the plaintiff No. 2 and their labourers. But although the defendants were unsuccessful in their clandestine attempt to dispossess the plaintiffs from the suit land they threatened the labourers to take forcible possession of the suit land. The plaintiffs, therefore, filed the suit for declaration of their right, title and interest over the suit land, confirmation of possession and perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from entering into the such land and disturbing the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs. Along with the plaint the plaintiffs also filed an application under O. 39, Rr. 1 and 2 of C.P.C. for granting ad interim injunction restraining the defendants from entering into the suit land till disposal of the suit.