Gopal Chandra Roy vs Sunanda Roy And Ors.

Heard Mr. D. Chakraborty, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. H. Laskar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as Mr. D.R. Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No.1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9 & 10 and Mr. D. Bhattacharjee learned counsel appearing for the respondents No. 24, 25(a), 25(b) & 26.

This is an appeal under Section 96 of the Cr.P.C. from the judgment and decree dated 23.11.2012 delivered in T.S.(P) No.81 of 2006 by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court No.1, West Tripura, Agartala.

The appellant filed a suit being T.S.(P) No.81 of 2006 for partition of the joint property inherited by the plaintiff and the defendants of the suit. The suit property has been described in the schedule below the plaint.

It is apparent from the schedule that the suit property was spread over in the old Jote Nos. 18/404, 42/428, 45/431, 46/432, 47/433, 48/434 and 96/482 of Mouja-Charipara, District- West Tripura.

By the first settlement operation, the entire suit land, according to the plaintiff-appellant, was recorded in Khatians No. 2101, 2102, 2103 & 2370 of Mouja-Charipara. Those khatians were finally published on 23.05.1968. In the revisional survey and settlement operation those khatians were renumbered as Khatians No. 911/1, 911/2, 911/3 and 911/4, 1582/1, 1582/2 and 1582/3, 1974/1, 1974/2, 1974/3, 1974/4, 2480 of Mouja Charipara.

There is no dispute that all the defendants are the legal heirs of two uncles of the plaintiff-appellant, namely Bidyadhar Roy and Jojneswar Roy. The plaintiff-appellant held the joint property with the said two uncles as recorded in the aforesaid khatians. The plaintiff- appellant has admitted that all the defendants were in possession on some parts or the other of the suit property. The plaintiff-appellant in his fairness has admitted that the defendants Nos.1-11 were entitled to 1/3rd of the share through Bidyadhar Roy, uncle of the plaintiff- appellant and defendant Nos. 12 to 26 were entitled to 1/3rd of the share through Jojneswar Roy. But the plaintiff-appellant has stated that when he approached them to get the suit property partitioned in equitable shares, the defendants did not give any heed to such proposal. In the meanwhile, the defendants had started developing on occupying the advantageous part of the said land.

By filing the written statement those defendants have contended inter alia that the plaintiff-appellant and his uncles had "amicable partition of the suit land during the life time of his uncles." In terms of the said partition, the plaintiff-appellant had taken possession of the respective plots covered by 1/3rd share. From the said land, what the appellant got by way of partition, he sold out some land to various persons viz. Sri Sitaram Sarkar, Sri Shyama Charan Sarkar, Sri Sachindra Chandra Roy and others by separate sale deeds since the year 1957. He retained some portions for his homestead. The total unpartitioned land was 46 kanis. The plaintiff-appellant and his uncles, namely Bidyadhar Roy and Jojneswar Roy sold the land measuring 21 kanis jointly during their life time and the remaining unsold part of the joint property measuring 9.54 acres were recorded in the khatians. The defendants have further stated in their written statement as follows :

"It is to be mentioned here that after the death of the predecessors of the Defendants, their sons, daughters and the wife became the owners and possessors of the suit land and other land being the rest after the sale of the land out of the total land of 46 kanis by the Plaintiff within the legal heirs of late Vidyadhar Roy. Defendant Nos. 3,4,5,6,7,8,9 & 10 are the sons and daughters of late Ananda Roy, the deceased son of late Vidyadhar Roy whereas the defendant Nos.1, 2 and 11 are the sons and daughters of late Vidyadhar Roy, as the wife of Late Vidyadhar Roy died. On the death of late Vidyadhar Roy and his son late Ananda Roy, the Defendant Nos.1-11 have become the joint owners and possessors of most of the suit land as recorded in the revisional survey settlement operation in khatian Nos. 911/1, 911/2, 911/3, 911/4 where the other Khatians as mentioned in the plaint of the Plaintiffs such as Khatian Nos. 1582/1, 1582/2 and 1582/3 were created in the names of the heirs of deceased Jojneswar Roy. The portion of the land of the Plaintiff which he got by amicable settlement of the family arrangement so far had been sold by him to various persons have been recorded in the names of those purchasers one of the said Khatian so has been created by the revisional survey settlement operation is numbered as 1974/1 in the name of one Sri Sachindra Chandra Roy and others."

It has been further asserted that the predecessor of the defendants No.1-11, namely late Bidyadhar Roy had got his name recorded in the revised khatians No.2127, 2101, 2102, 2103. All the said khatians were subsequently changed. Those were mutated in the names of the legal heirs of late Bidyadhar Roy vide No.911/1, 911/2, 911/3 and 911/4.

The defendants did reiterate that the plaintiff-appellant has got no right, title, interest and possession over the suit land. No share over the suit land can be claimed by the appellant and as such no decree for partition of the suit land would be passed. Hence, the suit of the plaintiff-appellant was declared liable to be dismissed.

After recording the evidence, to answer the issues which are noted below the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Court No.1, West Tripura, Agartala has dismissed the suit :

Is the suit maintainable in Law?

Was the suit property partitioned amicably earlier ?

Has the plaintiff any share in the suit property ?

To what relief/reliefs the plaintiff is entitled ?

While returning the finding on the Issues No.2 & 3, the trial court has observed as under :

"Considering the above facts and circumstances, I find that the Plaintiff is admitting about amicable partition of the suit land and thereby I find nothing wrong to decide the Issue No.2 that the suit land was amicably partitioned earlier. Since there was amicable partition amongst the plaintiff and the predecessors of defendants the question of allotting any share to the plaintiff afresh at this stage after lapse of such a long time does not arise. These Issues are answered accordingly."

Mr. D. Chakraborty, learned senior counsel appearing for the plaintiff-appellant has submitted that there is no record regarding the said amicable partition. The partition can be caused amicably but it is required to be recorded in accordance with law. Since the defendants denied to cause the partition formally recording the same in an instrument by delineating the share of the coparceners over the suit property. The finding on the issues No.2 & 3 according to Mr. D. Chakraborty, learned senior counsel is unsustainable.

Mr. D.R. Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No. 1 to 10 has however submitted that there is no cause for filing the suit and as such there is infirmity in the finding returned by the court below.

Mr. D. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No. 24, 25(a), 25(b) & 26 has also supported such contention.

The learned counsel for the defendants have in particular asserted that there were several transfers after the partition by creating third party interest in the suit property. According to them, the amicable partition has been given effect fully.

Having scrutinised the records of evidence, we find that the appellant [the plaintiff in the suit] as PW-1 has clearly stated in the cross-examination unambiguously as under :

"It is a fact that the suit property has been amicably partitioned between us orally together with other plots of our predecessors. It is a fact that my uncle Jojneswar during his life time sold out some plots of his share and that the legal heirs of said Jojneswar are at present residing."

One of the defendants namely Sunanda Roy (DW-1) in his Examination in Chief has stated that the plaintiff appellant does not have any right over the suit property, as the predecessors of the defendants got the said property by way of amicable partition on demarcation. She has stated as under:

"The total land our predecessor late Bidyadhar and his two brothers Jojneswar Roy and Kailash Chandra Roy as they got by inheritance jointly from their father late Kalachand Roy was more than 3(three) Drones under so many jotes such as old 233, 259, 744, 258 under Kayemi Taluk No. 169 of Maharani Kanchanprava Debi being subsequent jote Nos. 18/404, 42/428, 45/431, 46/432, 47/433, 48/434 & 96/482 being the land classified under various Khatians old 2101, 2102, 2103, 2370, 2151, 2127 and subsequently renumbered by revisional survey settlement operation such as 911/1, 911/2, 911/3 and 911/4, 1582/1 and 1582/3, 1974/1, 1974/2, 1974/3, 1974/4, 2480 and also some other Khatians as had been recorded in the names of we, the Defendant Nos. 1-11 and in the names of the Plaintiff and his purchasers and also in the names of the Defendant Nos. 12-26 and their purchasers classified as Nal, Bastu, Viti, Chara, Pond (Doba), garden etc.

We, the Defendants No.1-11 are the joint owners of the land as we have got from our predecessor late Bidyadhar Roy as have been recorded in Khatian Nos. Old 2101, 12012, 2103, 2151, 2371 at present 911/1, 911/2, 911/3, 911/4 and in other Khatians. The Plaintiff very intentionally did not disclose the total measurement of the land of the predecessor of the Plaintiff and the Defendants namely, late Kailash Chandra Roy, late Bidyadhar Roy and late Jojneswar Roy and by misrepresentation as stated the total joint land was only 46 kanis out of more or less 3 Drones and also purposely stated that out of 46 Kanis the Plaintiff and the predecessor of the Defendants namely Bidyadhar Roy and Jojneswar Roy jointly sold 21 Kanis. In fact, our predecessor late Bidyadhar Roy did not sold his portion of land and also any land jointly with the Plaintiff and Jojneswar as stated by the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff to get illegal gain included the numbers of some Khatians in his plaint showing the Khatians of the suit land along with the Khatians in our joint names i.e. of the Defendant Nos. 1-11 to creating clouds and confusion in the mind of the Court."

Neither the plaintiff-appellant nor the defendants No. 12-26 has got any share over the suit land and also they have got no right, title and possession over the suit land. The defendants No.1-11 since have inherited the property through late Bidyadhar Roy are possessing the suit land by constructing huts and also by maintaining garden, planting fruit bearing trees etc. and have been possessing the same as homestead and pond etc. Thus the defendants No.1 to 11 have asserted that they are the sole owner of the suit property as shown by the plaintiff-appellant as the joint property to be partitioned severing equitable shares to the legal heirs of Kalachand Roy.

Mr. D. Chakraborty, learned senior counsel has submitted that there is no records in regard the partition but he has fairly submitted that the joint property was amicably partitioned and accordingly khatians have been opened. Subsequently, by way of transfers third party interests have created.

On appreciation of the evidence this court arrives at the similar inference. On scrutiny of the khatians, we notice that in the khatians created by the revisional survey settlement, the possession against the plot numbers is recorded. For example, khatian No.911/1 shows the possession of the defendants No.1 to 11 over the various plots. Even Mr. D. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel did not contest that position of fact that the possession has been recorded according to the partition that had been made amicably. In this regard, Mr. Chakraborty, learned senior counsel has nothing to add or contest. The appellant's only grievance is that the suit should have been decreed by recording the partition according to the share. In our considered opinion, on considering the respective possession after the amicable partition and distribution thereof, it can be conveniently and on consensus can be declared that the amicable partition of the landed property left by late Kalachand Roy was caused amongst legal heirs and the respective share had been demarcated and recorded in their respective khatians. But no preliminary decree is required to be passed as on the said demarcated land the legal heirs of Kalachand Roy are in possession in accordance to their share.

In the circumstances, it is further declared that the joint property left by Kalachand Roy was amicably partitioned amongst Kailash Chandra Roy, Bidyadhar Roy and Jojneswar Roy [none of them unfortunately survives any more]. The respective share was demarcated and possession was taken over. The possession is recorded in the respective khatians by way of mutation and as such, the legal heirs of Kalachand Roy has the right, title and interest over the respective land in accordance with the possession as reflected in the khatians. The joint property for this purpose shall mean the land pertained to jote Nos.18/404, 42/428, 45/431, 46/432, 47/433, 48/434 & 96/482 at mouja-Charipara or their corresponding numbers. The plaintiff and the defendants are entitled to their possession as recorded in the khatian (the record of rights). Their possession as recorded in the khatians are not to be disturbed, even the third party interest as created by way of transfer shall not be disturbed. It is declared that the amicable partition and the possession thereof shall be treated as final and the subsequent transfer are not to be called in question by either of the legal heirs of Kalachand Roy, since deceased. The impugned judgment and decree dated 23.11.2012 is interfered with and modified in terms of the above.

The appeal is party allowed.

Draw the decree accordingly.

Transmit the records thereafter.