SARDA SUNDARI ROY Vs. GOURANGA CHANDRA ROY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this second Appeal the judgment and decree dated 2.1.1997 passed by learned Additional District Judge, West Tripura, Agartala in Title Appeal No. 51 of 1993 has been assailed. The first appellate court by its impugned judgment affirmed the judgment and decree dated 14.6.1993 passed by the Assistant District Judge, West Tripura, Agartala in Title Suit No. 66 of 1977. Having lost in both the courts below, the defendants-appellants herein have preferred this second appeal.

(2.) I have heard Mr. K. N. Bhattacharjee, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. S. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. A. K. Deb, learned counsel for the respondents.

(3.) A brief resume of the material facts may be noted as follows : The first respondent Gouranga Chandra Roy instituted Title Suit No. 66 of 1977 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, West Tripura, Agartala against the four appellants herein seeking partition of the suit lands appertaining to Khatian Nos. 2572 and 2560 claiming half of the said lands. His case is that the suit lands along with other lands originally belonged to Tripura Sundari Kapali, who was joteder under Basmayee Debya. After her demise, her three sons Ramesh Roy, Banamali Roy and Mahesh Roy became the owners of her lands and they partitioned the lands among themselves equally. The suit land fell into the share of Mahesh Roy, who had two sons, namely Monmohan Roy and Lalmohan Roy, who were jointly and equally owning and possessing the suit lands. Monmohan Roy executed a gift deed in favour of the plaintiff and thus after becoming owner of 50% of the suit lands, he along with the defendants-appellants had been possessing the same enjoying usufructs therefrom. But in the last revisional survey, the entire suit lands have been recorded in the name of Lalmohan Roy and predecessor in interest of the appellants herein. The plaintiff filed revision petition under the Tripura Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act (for short 'TLR & LR) before the Revenue authority and the said revision petition was pending at the time of filing the suit. It may be noted here that during the pendency of the suit, the revision petition was rejected confirming thereby correctness of the record of rights in respect of the suit lands in the name of the appellants herein. However, the plaintiff approached the defendants-appellants for partition of the suit lands, which they turned down compelling the plaintiff to file the suit for partition.