GITA BHATTACHARJEE Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Second appeal is directed against the Judgment and Decree dated 20.7.88 confirming the Judgment of the Trial Court,

(2.) Heard Mr. S. Bhattacherjee, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants and Mr, U.B. Saha, learned Govt. Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents.

(3.) The plaintiff Kamode Ranjan Bhattacherjee (since deceased) brought a suit in the year 1985 against the respondents-defendants for right, title and interest in respect of the land described in schedule 'C' to the plaint. The case of the plaintiff to that he took settlement of 10 gandas of land from the successors of late Amanuddin under-raiyat at a premium of Rs. 100/-. In the year 1955 the land belonged to the jotedar late Amanuddin who was recorded in the Jote No. under Kayemi Taluk No. 1 at Mouja Rupaspur in Kamalpur town. After the death of Amanuddin his successors became the jotedars and the plaintiff paid rent to the Jotedars and took rent receipts from time to time. It has been averred by the plaintiff that since 26.9.55 A.D. he has and had been possessing the land in exercise of his raiyati right by catching fish, growing seasonal crops and by constructing house on the said land. During the settlement operation in the year 1960 the impugned land was also surveyed in C.S. Plot No. 1187 and 1188 under Khatian No. 524 and the land measuring 2 gandas, 4 dhurs and 2 gandas; 2 haras and 5 dhurs recorded in favour of the plaintiff-appellant. It is alleged that the defendant took over possession of the land of the C.S. Plot Nos, 1188 on 23.4.70 A.D. by constructing a temple shed thereon. The defendant managed to get a deed of gift executed by two of the successors of late Amanuddin. The plaintiff also averred that he had been possessing the land adverse to the interest of the defendant and had acquired right, title and interest over the land described in schedule 'C' and 'B' in plot Nos. 1187 and 1188 measuring 2 gandas, 4 dhurs and 2 gandas, 5 dhurs respectively. However, the defendant tried to demolish the hut and also made an attempt to take forcible possession in respect of the said 9 dcm. of land situated thus, the plaintiff-appellant filed the suit.