RANJIT KUMAR BANIK Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) :- The petitioner-appellant has purchased a plot of land measuring 80 decimals situated at Khowai under Khatian No. 854. Khowai Town. Mouza bearing Dag No. 1575 and 1576 from the Respondent No. 4 Srish Chandra Deb, whose legal representatives have been brought on record as Respondent Nos. 4 to 16, for consideration of Rs. 900/- by registered sale deed dated 28-4-70. On the same day i.e. on 28-4-70, the petitioner-appellant Ranjit Kumar Bank had entered into a separate agreement with the deceased respondent No. 4 Srish Chandra Deb for retransferring the property within a period of three years for consideration of an amount of Rs. 900/-. When the property was not reconveyed the Respondent No. 4 Srish Chandra Deb (since deceased) approached the Civil Court and filed a suit for enforcement of the agreement and reconveyance of the property by the appellant as per the agreement dated 28-4-70. The trial Court decreed the suit. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, the appellant preferred an appeal before the Appellate Court. The appellate Court by its judgment and order dated 21-7-77 allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree granted by the trial Court as a result thereof, the suit filed by the respondent No. 4 Srish Chandra Deb (since deceased) for enforcement of the agreement stood dismissed.

(2.) Later on Srish Ch Deb approached the Tribunal under the Tripura Agricultural Indebtedness Relief Act, 1979 (for short the Act, 1979) for redelivery of the property treating it to be a mortgage which was the subject matter of the transaction dated 28-4-70. The Tribunal by its order dated 17-6-89 held that the transaction entered into between and by the parties dated 28-4-70 was a transaction of mortgage. The Tribunal further held that the Respondent No. 4 (since deceased) to be a marginal farmer and consequently held the said transaction to be a debt within the meaning of the Act, 1979 and it being a mortgage, directed the appellant to release the property and deliver its possession to the Respondent No. 4 Srish Ch Deb (since deceased on or before 20th June, 1989. It was further directed that the appellant herein to produce the mortgage deed and other documents for endorsement for redemption. Aggrieved by the said order, an appeal was preferred by the appellant before the Appellate Tribunal. The Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal by its order dated 11 -1 -1990 and the said order was the subject-matter of the writ petition filed before this Court, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge by order dated 7-7-97. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge the present appeal is filed by the appellant.

(3.) It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that once the Civil Court adjudicated upon the agreement dated 28-4-1970 and dismissed the suit filed by the respondent No. 4 for re-transfer of the suit property the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to reconsider the transaction and held it to be a mortgage and direct redemption of the mortgage and redelivery of the possession. It is further submitted that the Act having come into force on 31st March, 1979 the transaction entered into between the parties prior to that date, i.e., 28-4-70, the Tribunal could not have exercised its jurisdiction over the transactions, which has been entered into prior to the Act coming into force.