MONOMOHAN PAUL Vs. NIL MOHAN DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The judgment dated 6-1-1998 passed by the Addl. District Judge, West Tripura in T. A. No. 16 of 96 has been impugned in the present second appeal. In that judgment after recording the reverse finding the judgment dated 4-1-1996 passed by the Addl. Munsiff, Sadar in T. S. No. 154 of 1979 dismissing the suit of the plaintiff respondents herein was set aside and the suit was decreed.

(2.) The factual matrix in a short compass may be noticed thus. The plaintiff respondents are two brothers. The first plaintiff respondent Nil Mohan Das by virtue of a lease deed executed by the appellant herein (Ext. A) on 16-1-1975 inducted into lands and building mentioned therein and thus became the lessee under the appellant. The claim of the plaintiff respondent is that adjacent to the said leased property measuring 22 ft. x 12 ft. there was another plot of vacant land of Agartala Municipality. He applied for and was allotted the said plot of lands on which he constructed a building measuring 22 ft. x 16 ft. after obtaining approval from the said Municipality. It was contended by the respondent that though the lease deed executed by the appellant herein was intended to be only for building measuring 22 ft. x 12 ft., the schedule of the deed covered the suit land also which was a fraudulent act on the part of the appellant. Taking advantage of the manipulation or wrong description of the leased property the defendant appellant made attempt to dispossess the plaintiff respondent from the suit land. Under the circumstances, the plaintiff respondent instituted the title suit for declaration of title, confirmation of possession and injunction in respect of the suit land.

(3.) The suit was contested by the appellant herein contending, inter alia, that the entire land including the suit land measuring 25 ft. x 30 ft. was leased out by him in favour of the plaintiff respondents and thus they became the tenant of the entire premises. The evidentiary value of the lease deed cannot be diminished by any oral evidence and, therefore, the plaintiff respondents were prevented from taking the plea that the suit property was not a part of the leased property. In clause 10 of the lease deed it was specifically provided that the plaintiff respondent would maintain status quo of the lands adjacent to the building and in that view of the matter, it was not open to the plaintiff respondent being a tenant to claim hostile title over the suit land.