GITA RANI NANDI Vs. PRASANNA KR CHOUDHURY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Second Appeal has a chequered career. The appellant Monoranjan Nandy (now deceased and substituted by his legal heirs) filed Title Suit No. 12 of 1966 in the Court of Munsiff (now Civil Judge, Junior Division), Belonia, South Tripura against the respondent Prasanna Kr. Choudhury for declaration of title, confirmation of possession and permanent injunction in respect of the suit lands. His case is that one Satish Ch. Sarkar had taken jote settlement of 8 kanis 10 gandas of land appertaining to kayemi taluk No. 25 from the Talukdar one Shri Bireswar Podder, who was made proforma-defendant. Satish sold 61/2 kanis of the said land to the plaintiff appellant. In 1953 survey operation, the land was measured and recorded as 6 kanis 9 gandas under C.S. plot No. 738 of Jote No. 117. The entire land of this plot and jote was sold by plaintiff to the respondent by registered sale deed dated 25.3.1958. Thereafter, on 14.8.1958, the plaintiff-appellant took settlement of 4 kanis of land of same taluk from same talukdar by registered patta on payment of rent and this land appertained to plot No. 1290 of jote No. 71/132. With the coming into force of the TLR & LR Act, 1960, the taluki right (intermediary right) was vested in the Government and by virtue of the relevant provision of that Act, the appellant became raiyat directly under the Government in respect of the said land measuring 4 kanis appertaining to plot No. 1290 of jote No. 717 132. The appellant continued to pay revenue to the State Government as raiyat and he was in possession since 14.8.1958 when he got the land settled on rent from the talukdar. He cleared jungle, reclaimed land and raised crops on the said land.

(2.) On 17.4.1966, the defendant-respondent threatened to dispossess him from a part of the aforesaid land measuring 15 gandas, which compelled him to file a suit with prayer for temporary injunction. His prayer was allowed by the learned trial court granting temporary injunction restraining the respondent from disturbing his peaceful possession, but that order was later vacated. On 19.6.1966, the respondent dispossessed the appellant from the remaining 3 kanis 5 gandas of land and thus the appellant remained in possession of 15 gandas of land. As he was dispossessed, the plaintiff-appellant amended his plaint seeking confirmation of possession in respect of 15 gandas of land, which was in this possession and recovery of possession in respect of 3 kanis 5 gandas of land from which he was dispossessed by the defendant respondent.

(3.) The defendant-respondent contested the suit contending that the suit lands were covered by plot No. 738 of jote No. 117, which were sold to him by the appellant by specific boundaries, which were tillas on north, south and west and Tailaichara (a small stream) on the east. Within this boundary the lands of jote No. 117 only existed and, therefore, the suit lands measuring 4 kanis, which the appellant later claimed to have got from the talukdar were covered by his jote only. He denied that the lands in suit appertained to any other plot or any other jote.