GOPAL CH BANERJEE Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The unsuccessful plaintiffs in Title Suit No. 15 of 1992 on the file of the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), South Tripura District, Udaipur are the appellants in this regular First Appeal. The appeal is directed against the impugned judgment and decree dated 30.9.1996 whereby the trial Court dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiffs-appellants.

(2.) That, in order to consider as to whether the judgment and decree suffers from any infirmities or error requiring our interference in exercise of our appellate jurisdiction, relevant facts may have to be noted. The plaintiffs-appellants herein filed suit with the following prayers:

(3.) The case, as pleaded by the plaintiffs-appellants, is that the plaintiffs-appellants and the defendant respondent No. 4 are the full blood brothers; their predecessor, late Satish Chandra Banerjee, during his life time purchased a vast extent of land in auction that was held on 10.2.1346 Tripura Era (for short 'TE'), measuring 8 drones, 10 Kanis, 5 Gandas, 2 Karas and 5 Dhurs appertaining to old Jote No.11 of Mouja Sabroom, which was originally owned by one Akshay Kumar Guha. The auction itself was held for recovery of land revenue arrears pursuant to a certificate granted and after completion of auction, a Sale Certificate was issued vide Ext. 1 document. It is asserted that the possession of the property purchased under the Ext. document No. 1 in auction sale has been delivered by the Government and during the settlement operation of 1347 TE, the land purchased under the Ext. document No. 1 was mutated in the name of the predecessor of the appellants plaintiffs, Satish Chandra Banerjee, in Jote No. 41 at Mouja Sabroom. Suffice it to note that the claim of the plaintiffs-appellants is that they have inherited the property as sons of the predeceased son of the original owner. It is also asserted that they were in possession of the said land jointly and the land revenue was also paid by them. The land of Jote No.41 of Mouja Sabroom was duly recorded in the name of the plaintiffs and the proforma defendant No. 4 during the first settlement operation, but a substantial portion whereof was not recorded in the name of the plaintiffs-appellants and the proforma defendant No. 4. The land, which was not recorded in the name of the plaintiffs-appellants and the proforma defendant No. 4 has been described in schedule "A" and "B" of the plaint. That having wrongly recorded in the khas khatian, the Govt. has no right, title and interest over the suit land and that it was not possible for the plaintiffs-appellants and the proforma defendant No. 4 to maintain physical possession over each and every plot of land purchased under Ext. document No.1 inasmuch as substantial portion of land so purchased was vacant being tilla and jungle land and it was not possible for them to keep constant vigil over the suit land. The sum and substance of the pleadings is that the Government is in illegal possession and without any authority of law constructed Govt. offices thereon including school buildings, office buildings etc.