SUKUMAR SAHA Vs. SMTILANGTI CHAKMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this Second Appeal, the appellant has called in question correctness and legality of the judgment and decree dated 21 st March, 2005 passed by the Additional District Judge, North Tripura, Dharmanagar in Title Appeal No. 22/2004 dismissing the appeal.

(2.) I have heard Mr. A. K. Bhowmik, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. S. Ghosh, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. P. Roy Barman, learned counsel for the respondents.

(3.) The appellant herein instituted Title Suit No. 7/2004 in the Court of the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Dharmanagar, North Tripura for a decree of perpetual injunction restraining the respondents herein from disturbing peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit-tank by the appellant measuring 0.92 acre appertaining to C.S. Plot Nos. 1146 and 1147 of Khas Khatian Nos. 1/18 and 1/17 within Mouja Dhanicherra. It is not in dispute that the suit property is owned by the State Government and has been accordingly recorded in Khas Khatian. The dispute is precisely over the possession of the said suit property. The appellant claimed that originally, before excavation of the fishery tank, the land was in possession of one Rajdhar Sarkar, from whom he took over its possession 27/ 28 years back. Originally the land was classified as nal and lunga, which was later converted into a tank for the purpose of fishery by raising embankment on its four sides at a cost of Rs. 50,0007-. He reared fish in the said tank, which became his main source of income. There had never been any objection or resistance from the State Government to his peaceful enjoyment of the property as a possessor. Being a poor landless person, he applied for allotment of the said land to the District Magistrate & Collector, North Tripura, which was duly acted upon by way of making an enquiry followed by recommendation in his favour. The enquiry report clearly mentioned that the appellant was in peaceful and uninterrupted possession of the suit property for 25/26 years. The respondents have thieir lands around the said tank and led by greed had covetous eye on the said property. In order to grab the tank they planned to forcefully take over its possession. On 7.3.2004 in the afternoon, the said respondents made attempt to dispossess the appellant by entering into the suit tank and catching fish. The attempt was, however, foiled by timely intervention from the appellant. The respondents, however, made no bones about their intention to apply force again for physically taking over the possession of the suit tank. Thus, the appellant had to institute the suit for perpetual injunction as noted above.