SUDHIR RANJAN MAZUMDAR Vs. MATHUMOG CHOUDHURY & ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal is directed against the judgment dated 19.8.1977 of learned Subordinate Judge, South Tripura, Udaipur in Title Appeal No.5 of 1976 by which judgment the judgment of learned Munsiff, Belouia dismissing the suit of the appellant was affirmed.

(2.) The suit which has given rise to this appeal was instituted on 23.11.1972 by the present appellant against the respondents for declaration of his korfa right (possessory right as under-raiyat) over a plot measuring 3.43 acres appertaining to Khatian No.441/173 of Mouja Hicha Cherra, correction of record of rights and a decree of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from entering into the suit land.

(3.) The substance of the plaint-case is that one Kshirode Chandra Tripura was the owner of the aforesaid land measuring 3.43 acres (hereinafter referred to as suit land) and sometime in the year 1955 AD the appellant took korfa settlement of the aforesaid land by an oral agreement on condition of paying rent at the rate of Rs.5.00 per kani per annum. Thus on taking the korfa settlement of the suit land the plaintiff-appellant started possessing the land by growing crops thereon after reclamation of the land at a huge expenditure. While the appellant was possessing the land in suit, Kshirode Chandra Tripura sold the suit land to proforma defendant Kumbhiram Roaja. This sale, however, did not change the position of the appellant as he had been possessing the suit land as an under-raiyat under the proforma defendant on paying the rent as usual. But this proforma defendant again sold the suit land to the principal defendant who also accepted the appellant as his korfa raiyat. But during last survey settlement operation the land in suit being wrongly recorded in the name of proforma defendant, the defendant taking advantage of this wrong entry in the record of right threatened the appellant to dispossess him of the suit land on 14.11.1972 when appellant went to the suit land to see the standing crops which were grown by him. The appellant, therefore, filed the instant suit seeking relief as stated above.