MILAN BALA DAS Vs. ANIL CHANDRA ROY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. B. Banerjee, learned counsel appearing for the appellants as well as Mr. P. Dutta, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 and Mr. D. Deb, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No.2 to 5. Despite due notice, the remaining respondents did not ensure their representation and when the matter was taken up for hearing, there was no representation on their behalf.

(2.) The undisputed fact which would provide the perspective fact for this appeal is that the respondent No.1, the plaintiff in the suit, filed the suit being T.S. 23 of 2010 in the court of the Civil Judge, Sr. Division, South Tripura, Udaipur, as it then was, against the respondents No.2 to 8, the defendants in the suit. In the said suit, Sunil Chandra Das, the predecessor of the appellants was the proforma defendant. The said suit was filed for declaration of right, title and interest over the Schedule-A land and for recovery of possession of the land described in the Schedules-B and C land of the plant. The plaintiff, the respondent No.1 herein, did not assert any claim against Sunil Chandra Das since deceased, the proforma defendant and in that context, Sunil Chandra Das, the proforma defendant did not contest the suit. Following the due process, the suit is decreed directing recovery of possession of Schedules-B and C land on demarcating the same by Survey Commissioner. The defendants and their agents were perpetually restrained from entering into the suit land after the plaintiff got possession of the suit land in the process.

(3.) Being aggrieved by the said order of the first appellate court, the present appeal under Section 100 of the C.P.C has been filed. At the time of admitting the appeal, the following substantial questions of law were formulated: