NIRANJAN DEB Vs. NIBARAN CH DEB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this Second Appeal the judgment dated 31st January, 1998 passed by the learned District Judge, West Tripura, Agartala in Title Appeal No. 35/1997 affirming the judgment and decree dated 31.3.1997 in Title Suit No. 17/1991 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), West Tripura, Agartala has been impugned by the defendant-appellant herein.

(2.) The relevant facts giving rise of the present proceeding originates from a dispute over certain lands (suit land) between the two brothers, of whom the plaintiff- respondent herein is the younger one. He filed the Title Suit No. 17/1991 alleging that his brother, the appellant herein, dispossessed him from his lands measuring 3 kanis, 17 gandas, 3 karas, 2 krantas and 15 dhurs of which he became owner by virtue of two sale deeds and one gift deed. The two registered sale deeds were executed by Smti Suprava Shil and Shri Premananda Das and the registered gift deed was executed by his father Upendra Chandra Roy. The defendant-appellant, being his elder brother was cultivating the said lands on his behalf but, in the year 1397 BS on 2nd Paush, the said brother dispossessed him from the suit lands which fact constitute the cause of action for filing the suit.

(3.) The defendant-appellant while admitted genuineness of the two registered sale deeds and the gift deed whereby plaintiff respondent became ostensible owner of the suit lands, but in the same breathe raised a hostile claim that the suit lands were actually purchased by him with his money in the name of the plaintiff-respondent out of affection. Even the lands of the gift deed were also purchased by him in the name of their father. Never the plaintiff-respondent was in possession of the suit lands as he was doing business in Assam with the capital loaned by him as elder brother. An amount of Rs. 20,000/- was given by the defendant-appellant to the plaintiff-respondent for the said business which was not repaid causing thereby acrimony between the two. The elder brother proposed that the plaintiff-respondent should execute a bainapatra in his favour and if he fails to repay the loan, he would execute registered sale deed for the suit lands in lieu thereof. But that was not agreed to and as a result the dispute persisted.