Subodh Chandra Bhowmik v. Nirode Bhowmik

INTHEHIGHCOURTOFTRIPURA AGARTALA CRPNo.31of2009 ShriSubodhChandraBhowmik,
  



 
         

 !  ......Petitioner -Versus- ShriNirodeBhowmik,
 "

# $

 
         

 !  ......Respondent BEFORE THEHON'BLEMR.JUSTICES.TALAPATRA %      & ' 
"   % 
   & $#("   

     &09.01.2015    ()! * 

  
   & Yes No √ JUDGMENT&ORDER(ORAL) +  ' !
      
   
   $#(      

    
   
    

  
 $! 
       

       #!  
  )!


 #(       ,-./0.,. $#(    !

#    
   
 
 #
  


 [2] 
       !  "

  00/    $
 !   1           ,..00..2 

 $

',,0..2
  !

'.3 0..3   #(   (      
 (     ( #((     4 #     5  $ #   6  ( !

     ! 
 #   )   #
     
 
 #  

 
     (     
  

      [3]

 ' 
          

!#

    
  
            ! 7 89:114! ,    ,,; $$   
    ,..00..2 +   #(  
      ,-.;0..2       


   
 

     
    ((  

        [4]  

  $#(       !
       
  

!#

     #      

  #(    ! 7 :1 4! ,/ $$       
  
! 7 14! ,.<0= $$ !#     

  
# 

 
   (   

   
 





 [5]   +  !
  
   

 
 $! 
  
       
 
 #  

  )   (
!

 "  (  




(  

!  ! ' !
       

!#

 
(




   > !

  ?         
   # 

   ! 
!

 (
   + 
    @,A   
     
  
  
       
!

 #   !

'.30..3

 

! & That, with reference to paragraph No.10 of the plaint it is denied and disputed that the plaintiff wasdispossessedfromthelandinquestion.The erstwhile co>owner Abani Mohan Bhowmik executed a registered will in favour of Upendra Chandra Deb in his lifetime and after his death Upendra Chandra Deb became the Co>owner of the land under Khatian No.25 on the strength of said registered will. Subsequently said Upendra Chandra Deb died leaving behind his wife as his only successor. Hence, the wife of Upendra ChandraDebnamely,BelaRaniDeb who resides presentlyatBaganBazarunderKalyanpurPolice Stationbecametheco>ownerofthelandbyway of inheritance.

 Thereafter Bela Rani Deb allowed the plaintiff and the defendant to cultivate into the land of her share under the Khatian No.25 indicatingseparateboundarythereonsincesheis the co>owner of the said land. The defendant cultivated in the suit land after obtaining permission from the co>owner namely Bela Rani Deb and since than the defendant is possessing thesuitlandwithoutobstructionfromanycorner. The plaintiff has fabricated a malicious story against the answering defendant to grave the property. There is no reasonable ground to believethestoryoftheplaintiffmadeinthissuit. The object of the plaintiffs is to frame a suit againsttheansweringdefendantwithanulterior motive. [6] "  !

    
 @,A    
 
$!


  ! 





 "

 00/ $
 ! 1  

   )!


   

     

          
  (      4 # 
  
  #      

      

!

  

!   

    B  1
         4 #     5 $ ##6( !

   !
 #    
      '0    !

 '.3  0..3     
                  ,C<  =(
 (   $! $ !  

  !   4 
(
     

   (     $ !  

 
 B  !
(
 

#      
 
!



( #( $! #(       .C.-0..2  $  "  ' ;-  0..2     
 $  4      <$4 ';-  0..2=   !#    !  !  
      #( 
 $!  
!

 
         
    #(  
    !
      [7]    
 (   $ !  

  !
   

   #( 
 

 (1        ,C<  = (
       
 
!#

  #(  





     $ !  

  
      !@           
  #    ( ! (        "

 ( 

     
   



 $#(       !
 

!#

    
    
        #     

     #(   $ !  

  !"

 ( $ !  


 !     

!   
 

       
 
(     JUDGE