AMARENDRA KUMAR DAS Vs. IRESHLAL DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is the Defendants-Appellants' Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure from the judgment and decree dated 22.8.1989 and 28.8.1989 respectively passed by the learned additional District Judge, Dharmanagar, North Tripura District, in Case No. Title Appeal 10 of 1988 thereby affirming the judgment and decree of the learned Munsiff, North Tripura, Dharmanagar, passed in Title Suit No. 13 of 1984.

(2.) The facts of the case in a short compass are as follows:- Shri Ireshlal Das as the plaintiff filed a suit as against the Defendants, the appellants herein for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants-apellants from disturbing the peaceful possession of the plaintiff-respondent over the suit land. According to the plaintiff- respondent, he purchased the suit land from the defendant-appellant No. 1, Shri Amarendra Kumar Das by a registered deed of sale dated 26.12.1980 A.D. and since then he has been possessing the suit land. The defendant- appellant Nos. 2 and 3 are the sons of the defendant-appellant No.1 and the defendant-appellant No. 4 is the wife of the defendant-appellant No.1. The further case of the plaintiff-respondent is that on 3.6.1984 A. D. at about 8 O'clock in the morning when the plaintiff-respondent along with his people were cultivating inside the suit land, the defendants-appellant Nos. 1, 2 and 3 came therewith lathi etc. and threatened the plaintiff- respondent that he should leave the suit land immediately and he should never come again to the suit: land otherewise the defendants-appellants will kill the plaintiff-respondent And, according to the plaintiff-respondent, the defendants-appellants threatened him saying that they will by force dispossess the plaintiff-respondent and if the plaintiff-respondent does not pay any heed to their threat then they will kill the plaintiff-respondent and bury him in the suit land. Hearing their voice the adjacent people came there for saving the life of the plaintiff-respondent and his people and then and there the defendants-appellants left the place by threatening the plaintiff- respondent that they will dispossess him by force from the suit land. Hence, the suit.

(3.) The defendants-appellants contested the suit by filing written statement and contended, inter-alia, that the suit land was not sold actually, but it was mortgaged to the plaintiff-respondent as the defendant-appellant No. 1 was in need of money for the marriage of his daughter. According to the defendants-appellants, the plaintiff-respondent is the cousin brother of the defendant-appellant No. 1 and as such the suit land was given in mortgage by a sale deed in good faith and belief. It is also the case of the defendants appellants that a verbal agreement was there amongst the parties to the extent that the defendant-appellant No. 1 will possess the suit land and cultivate it and in lieu of his money, the defendant-appellant No. 1 will give four 'pali' of paddy per kani per year to the plaintiff-respondent and if the mortgaged money is returned within the stipulated period, then the suit land will be returned to the defendant-appellant No. 1.