KESHAB CH DAS Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this Second appeal the following two questions have been formulated as a substantial question of law:

(2.) Facts for the purpose of disposal of the appeal may be narrated as follows : There was a money decree obtained by the appellant. The decree was obtained exparte. Thereafter the money execution case was filed and this case was also proceeded exparte and in execution of the said decree a plot of land was attached and thereafter sale proclamation for sale of the said land was issued. After the sale proclamation, the land was sold in auction. The Decree holder purchased the said land in auction and thereafter the authority issued a sale certificate (Ext-1) in favour of the appellant. As per the sale certificate an area of land included in various C.S. plots measuring more or less 5 (five) kanis was sold in auction sale and on the basis of the auction purchase, the appellant became the owner of the land purchased. In the sale certificate the boundary of land was also shown. The area of land sold was 5 (five) kanis more or less but the appellant occupied much larger area. According to the appellant the land occupied by him is about 20 kanis. But Serveyor found the land under the occupation of the appellant was about 8 kanis and 5 gandas. As the appellant did not get the settlement of more then 5 kanis which area was shown in the sale certificate, he filed the title suit for declaration of his right, title, interest and for confirmation of possession in respect of the entire land measuring 20 kanis under his occupation and this 30 kanis of land is within the boundary shown in the sale certificate. The Trial Court dismissed the suit on the ground that the appellant did not acquire right, title and interest on the basis of the sale Certificate in respect of entire land measuring 20 kanis or even 8 kanis 5 gandas as found by the Survey. Commissioner even though it was within the boundary given in the sale certificate.

(3.) Being aggrieved, the appellant preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Court and the First Appellate Court also confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court holding that the Appellant could not have derived right, title and interest in respect of the entire land as claimed. Hence the Second Appeal.