Decided on September 13,2022

Sadhan Chandra Chanda Appellant
Binode Shil Respondents


T.AMARNATH GOUD - (1.)This present second appeal has been filed under Sec. 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, read with Order XLII Rule 1 for reversing the impugned Judgment and Decree dtd. 16/7/2018 & 18/7/2018 respectively passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Udaipur, Gomati Tripura in Title Suit No.21 of 2017 and the impugned Judgment and Decree dtd. 30/8/2019 and 2/9/2019 passed by the learned District Judge, Gomati Tripura, Udaipur in Title Appeal No.07 of 2018 and thereupon, for decreeing the suit, filed by the plaintiff-appellants.
(2.)The facts of the case, in brief, are that the subject matter of the present suit is land measuring 0.07 acre under allotted-khatian No.815, Hal Plot No.1613/2762 situated at Mouja – Uttar Chandrapur appertaining to Hal Plot No.1613 of area 0.20 acres, i.e., total 0.27 acres described in "A" schedule of the plaint. The plaintiff-appellants herein asserted that considering their possession over "A" Schedule land the competent authority allotted the entire "A" Schedule land in the names of the plaintiff-appellants herein vide Allotment Order No.40 dtd. 26/4/1991. Accordingly, the allottee Khatian No.815 was prepared in their name on 7/8/1992. Subsequently, the computerized printed Khatian No.815 was generated in respect of the said allotted land of the plaintiffs. But in the said Khatian, erroneously, in Column No.6 the name and father's name of the plaintiff-appellant No.1 was wrongly typed as Sadhan Chandra Dey, S/o Upendra Chandra Dey instead of Sadhan Chandra Chanda, S/o Upendra Chandra Chanda and also the name of plaintiff No.2 as Sefali Dey instead of Sefali Chanda. Accordingly, the plaintiffs made a prayer before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Udaipur for correction of the said error in Column No.6 of the computerized printed Khatian No.815. The said matter is pending for disposal. According to the plaintiffs, in the last part of November 2011 the defendants dispossessed them from the entire land of Hal Plot No.1613/2762 of an area measuring 0.07 acres which is described as Schedule "C" in the plaint and which is part of the "A" schedule land. Since then the defendants have been illegally possessing Schedule "C" land by constructing dwelling huts and have been residing with their family members. The remaining land of Schedule "A" of the plaint, i.e., the land of Plot No.1614, an area measuring 0.20 acres is described as Schedule "B" land in the plaint. According to the plaintiff-appellants they have been possessing the Schedule "B" land as owners to the knowledge of the local people including the present defendants to date. The defendants have illegally possessed the "C" Schedule land since the last part of November 2011, and, they need to be evicted. The defendants on 2/6/2017 attempted to dispossess the plaintiffs from the Schedule "B" land by cutting mud from the part of the said land but failed due to resistance put up by the plaintiffs.
(3.)On the said premises, the plaintiffs prayed for a decree of declaration of the right, title, and interest over Schedule "A" land along with a perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from entering into the Schedule "B" land and for recovery of possession of the Schedule "C" land.

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.