Chitta Rn Debnath v. Renubala Debnath And 3 ORS

INTHEHIGHCOURTOFTRIPURA
AGARTALA R.S.A.No.21of2014 ShriChittaRanjanDebnath, 








 
 






 

  
  


 
!"
# 

 $
 %


.........Appellant -Versus- 1.
Smti.RenuBalaDebnath, "


&
'
 

2.
ShriRakeshDebnath,












&
'
 

3.
Smti.PranatiDebnath,













&
'
  (

 
















 

)
*

  
  

 
 %
!"
# 
 $ 4. Smti.MinatiDebnath,

 



+ 

  
  


 
!"
# 

 $

........Respondents BEFORE THEHON'BLEMR.JUSTICES.TALAPATRA ,

 

:

'


% - 
( .%



,

 

:

'


 - 
( .%







  
:/0 /0 01/2


.

3


4  
*
)

:26.02.2015 5 

  : YES NO √

 JUDGMENT&ORDER 


 


%
/11





6 

 3


-  
 %  01/9
.



( 
: 00

01//
3

 %
4  

 
 

[2]

 


  



 


: 17

01/1

 % 

 
%.

3

 

  
-%
%
3

 
 




 
%

3

-  



01 01//
3

.
4  

.


 
  
  

 
% 
 
;
"In this present case though the plaintiffsidefailedtoproducetheallotment orderonthebasiswhichtheygotallotment of the suit land, but they proved the record of right where the name of the plaintiff as mentioned as an allotte with an specific allotment order and as the defendant side has failed to prove contrary the entry made in the record of right of the plaintiff by adducing documentary evidence, hence, entries in the record of right of the plaintiff ispresumedtobecorrect.  Hence from the above discussion made I am of the opinion that plaintiff side provetheright,titleandinterestovertheA schedule land of the suit land and the plaintiffs side is entitled to get recovery of possession of Schedule 'B' land by evicting thedefendantandplaintiffsarealsoentitled fordeclarationofconfirmationofpossession overtheSchedule'C'land." [3]
(  .

3


-  

3

 
% 

 
 
 


 


%
<=





 

( 
: 00

01//


% 






 

 %
4  

 
  
"%

 

 
3





 


"
 ;

"2ndissueisaboutright,titleandinterestof the respondents over the 'A' schedule land and 3rd issue is whether the respondents are entitled to get recovery from the B schedule land, 4th issues is about declaration and confirmation over 'C' schedule land and 5th issues is about perpetual injunction. All these issues are relatedandtheseissuesaretakentogether. While deciding the issues learned court belowevaluatedtheevidenceoftheplaintiff respondent No.2, PWC1 Rakesh Debnath, P.W.2C Narayan Debnath, P.W.3C Ranjit Debnath and also analyze the evidence of appellant's side, D.W.1C Chitta Ranjan Debnath, D.W.2C Anil Chakraborty, D.W.3C Nepal Debnath, D.W.4CBenulal Bhowmik. Exbt.

1 is the certified copy of Khatian. That Khatian disclosed the fact that the land underDagNo.1619and1623wasallottedin the name of Renubala Debnath and her husband Lal Mohan Debnath. Area of the landis.07acres.Itistruethattheallotment order is not produced. But Khatian is definitely is a allotted Khatian. One of the allottee Lal Mohan Debnath died on 11.01.2008. Survivalship certificate is also produced which support that the respondentsNo.1,2,3and4beinglegalheirs substituted Lal Mohan Nath, the original allottee the land. The mater cancellation of allotment is not subject matter of this case. The dispute arises in respectofpossessionofthelandwhichwas handedovertotheappellantasalleged.

Itis alleged that the defendant appellant paid Rs.25,000/C as consideration money to the respondent No.1 and her husband. There is no documentary evidence in respect of payment of Rs.25,000/C for the purpose of the suit land under plot No.1619 and 1623 under Khatian No.870. This entry in the Khatian is not contradicted by any other document. The appellant himself admitted that the land was allotted in favour of the respondents.Thisfactadmittedinpara15of the written statement. The admission itself cannotcreatetitlenodoubt,buttheperson whoadmitteditcannotdenylateron,onthe principlesofestoppels.He isnotallowedto blowhotandcoldairinthesamebreath.

No better evidence is given by the appellant to show that the land was purchased in the year1998byhim.Thereisalsonoevidence to show that Rs.






  considerationmoney.Itisadmittedposition that the appellant did not file any suit for specific performance of contract to prove thattheywerealwaysreadytoperformtheir sideofcontract.Formtheevidenceadduced by the respondents side it appears that the part of the suit land under B schedule was allowedtobepossessedbythe appellantin the year 2006. The respondents allowed them to possess it as permissive possessor. Going through settlement record such permissive possession, however, not found. After lapse of some years in the year 2009 respondentsclaimedtogetbackthelandfor theirownpurposeandtheappellantrefused. One photo copy of allotment is found which is for land measuring .07 acres under Dag No.1619 and 1623.

 Allotment Khatian No.870ispreparedinthenameofRenubala Debnath and her husband Lal Mohan Debnath. Nothing contrary is found to disbelievethisKhatianwhichclearlyreflects the ownership the respondents. Therefore, the learned court below viewed that the oral contract between the parties not proved by convincing evidence. The advance payment or any hand note not proved. In this regard leaned court below referred the decision published in AIR 2004 SC1801,AIR2000SC1729.Afterdiscussion and analysis of the evidence on record learned court below viewed that the plaintiffs side have proved their right, title andinterestoverscheduleAland.Appellant side admitted possession over 'B' schedule land.

 As per contention of the appellant the landwasoccupiedonthebasisofagreement since 1998. But the appellant could not produce any convincing evidence to prove such oral contract and possession on payment of Rs.25,000/C. The matter of cancellation of record of right is not the matter of discussion in the civil court. It is admitted position that the appellant is in possession of the suit land which is owned by the respondents. The evidence on record convincingly proved the title the respondents over 'B' schedule land which is under occupation of the appellant. So, the respondents are entitled to get decree for recoveryofpossessionbydispossessingthe appellant from the 'B' schedule land.

 Being title holder of the remaining 0.02 acres of land under C schedule, the plaintiff respondents are entitled to get decree for confirmation of possession and perpetual injunction.






 propertointerferewiththedecisionarrived upon."

[4]
>

 


 


 
% 


%



"
%% 
3

%   
 3



 
% 


?
  . % @

 .



. %


%

%.%3
 .





 
.



%  A

"%



%%


  

 



 
%
 %.

3

 


%  A



 

 



% 


 

[5]

5




 
3



 1< 01/2

"

6 
"
"


 ;
"Whether the first appellate  court was correct by rejecting the prayer for adducing additional evidence as regards the cancelation of the source of title, the order the allotment, by the order dated 16.05.2013passedintheTitleAppealNo.22 of2011andwhatwouldbetheconsequence ofsuchcancellationoftheallotmentorderif admitted?" [6]

(

 
" 



 

   
'


 - 
 
% 
  


 

%3
 


 3



. %

 
%

%
- %
3

 
 
% 


. %
"%

 
 6 


%
%

"



 


%


. %

 % 
%%



 

 














6 

"



 3

 
%

6 





.

3
 


 
5 

 








 %
"
%%

%


 
% 
  


  

 

  [7] '


 - 
 
% 

 

3


%


)

B&>

0C




 

 
 
 3

 .

 %




/0 /1 01/0

3

A.
'  
  
.
%% 

 


"%

  



 %



 





. %
)

%


 
- %

 
% 
- %
%
 3
3




/= 01/9


(
: 00

01//




[8]
'


% - 
 
% 
  


 

 


 3







% 
3

 


 



% 
3





 % 


 

. "

%
/1C





,
 


 % 




/= 01/9

D %
 

;

"Learned Advocate for the appellantispresent. Learned Advocate for the respondentsisalsopresent. Written objection filed against the prayer filed under Order 41 Rule 27 of the C.P.C. Heardbothsides.






 Learned advocate for the appellant filed another prayer for giving additional evidence. This additional evidence is the certified copy of the petition filed by the respondents side in the case before the Hon'ble High Court vide W.P.(C) No.68 of 2013. Learned advocate for the appellant submits that the primary document i.e. the Khatianonthebasisofwhichthedecreewas given by the learned court below is already cancelledbytherevenuecourt.Thedecision oftherevenuecourtistobeincorporatedas evidenceforjustdecisionofthecase. On the other hand, learned advocatefortherespondentsarguesthatthe operationoftheorderoftherevenuecourtis already stayed by the order of the Hon'ble High Court in W.P.(C) 68/2013.

 As the operation of that order is stayed, so it cannot be taken into consideration by the civilcourt. Learned advocate for the appellant thensubmitsthatdifferentfactswereplaced beforetheHon'bleHighCourtforgettingthe stay order. So, that petition which is contradictory with the submission before this court is required to be given in this casesasadditionalevidence. I have considered the submission ofbothsides.Gonethroughthepetitionand thewrittenobjection. Admittedly,theorderoftheS.D.M., Udaipur dated 12.10.2012 is stayed by the Hon'ble High Court in case No.W.P.(C) 68/2013. As the operation of that order is stayed, so the order of S.D.M.

 which is a public document cannot be taken into considerationforjustdecisionatthisstage. Writ petition filed by the respondents side before the Hon'ble High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for getting stay order is not a matter for consideration to decide the case. In the writ petition nature relief sought is different category and it is before the domain of the Hon'ble High Court. Civil Court cannot take into consideration the writ petition which wasfiledbeforetheHon'bleHighCourt.So, thewritpetitionpendingbeforetheHon'ble HighCourtcannotbeconsideredasevidence intheCivilCourt.






 writpetitionfiledbytherespondentsbefore the Hon'ble High Court is unreasonable and not relevant. Therefore, this prayer for giving additional evidence in respect of the order of the S.D.M, Udaipur and the writ petition filed before the Hon'ble High Court, standsrejected."






















[Emphasisadded] [9]
'


 - 
 
% 
  


 

 


% 
% %



%


 D
% 
SyedandCompanyandothers vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir and others
 

1995 Supp (4) SCC 422, "

 D
% 

%

"



;


 "10.Wehavecarefullyconsideredtheabove submissions. We are of the view that no exceptioncouldbetakentothejudgmentof theHighCourt.Nodoubtaprayerwasmade beforetheprescribedauthoritybytheState requesting that a decree might be granted for the amount of price of timber extracted by the party. But that prayer alone was not enough. The pleadings ought to have been thereastowhatexactlywasthebasisofthe prayer.Weareafraidthattheentirecaseof the State before the prescribed authority proceededonlywithreferencetoroyaltyand interest thereof, but not with reference to the price of the timber.

 It is true that in MalikAbdulAhmadShajJalilAhmadAkhtar: AIR1982J&K16ithasbeenheldthatthe prescribed authority under Section 52 is empoweredtodeterminethepriceoftimber extracted. The State at that stage, should haveamendedthepleadingandincorporated the basis for the claim for the price of timber.ButforreasonsbestknowntheState merely took out an application under Order 41 Rule 27 to lead in evidence. Of course, evidence could have been allowed if there were pleadings to that effect. In this case, there was none. It is settled law that no evidencecanbeletinwithoutthepleading. The High Court was fully justified in rejectingtheapplication."






 [10]
+.



SyedandCompanyandothers vs.StateofJammuandKashmirandothers
'

 - 
 
% 

 


 


.  
D 

 %


%% 



3

A.
' 
 %




%
  


"

 
 




+

%
  %
 %


 D
% 
 PratapraiN.Kotharivs.JohnBraganza,  

1999 AIRSCW1284"

 D
% 

 

"



;

"10.Reliancewassoughttobeplacedonthe additional evidence admitted by the learned Single Judge during the pendency of the appealstoprovethattheappellanthadtitle tothe property. Itissettled lawthatinthe absence any plea, no evidence is admissible. The Single Judge of the High Court overlooked that when there was no plea or issue on the question of title, no evidencewhateverwasadmissibleregarding thesame.Heactedbeyondhisjurisdictionin permitting additional evidence to be filed in appeals." [11] >





 

 %


  
'

 - 
 
% 

% %



%


 D
% 

Nasib Kaur & Ors. vs. Col. Surat Singh(Deceased) through L.Rs. & Ors.,  

2013AIRSCW1299





%

  %
3

+
 
"

%%


 
>

 
%
3

 D
% 

NasibKaur&Ors.vs.Col. SuratSingh(Deceased)throughL.Rs.&Ors.


;






  "11.ThePlaintiff,however,contendedinthe second appeal before the High Court that material evidence had not been taken into considerationbythefirstappellatecourtand the High Court has framed the following substantialquestionoflaw: Whether the Courts below have failed to consider the material evidenceonrecord?" Having framed the substantial question of law,theHighCourtshouldhavepointedout in the impugned judgment the material evidence which had not been considered by thefirstappellatecourt,whichifconsidered, would have established ownership of the plaintiff to the suit property.

 Instead of pointingoutthematerialevidencewhichhas not been considered by the first appellate court, the High court has made its own assessment of the entire evidence as if it was the first appellate court and held that the plaintiff was the owner of the suit property and was entitled to possession of 17 karams X 45 karams of land depicted in lettersEHGFinthesiteplanEx.PWC9/Aand that he was also entitled to the relief of permanent injunction restraining the Plaintifffromraisinganyconstructioninthe saidpropertyoralienatingthesaidproperty. The High Court has itself noticed in the impugnedjudgmentthatthelanddepictedin the site plan Ex.PWC9/A as EHGF was deliveredto
Col.

GirdharSinghandhisfamily membersatthetimeofexecutionofthesale deed by the Plaintiff as Attorney of Nanak Singhon19.07.1979andtheappellantshad taken possession of the aforesaid land from
Col. Girdhar Singh and his family membersin1987.Theappellantswere,thus, in legal possession of the suit property and the High Court in exercise of its powers under Section 100, CPC could not have reversed the findings of the trial court and the first appellate court and decreed the suitsfordeclarationoftitleandforrecovery ofpossessionandinjunctioninfavourofthe Respondents so as to adversely affect such legalpossessionoftheappellants. 12.

       
  (AIR 2004 SC 1591) (SUPRA) cited by learned counsel for the respondents,thisCourtfoundthatthemain issuearoundwhichtheentirecaserevolved was whether the agreement dated 05.07.1976 was a license or a tenancy and though this issue was before the trial court andtheagreementwasheldtobealicence,






 the lower appellate court had not adjudicated upon this issue and this Court held that when the core issue is not adjudicated upon, it raises a substantial question of law under Section
100
CPC. In thepresentcase,thecoreissuewaswhether the plaintiff was the owner of the suit property and the first appellate court has heldinC.A.No.1721on20.03.2004thatthe plaintiff has not been able to prove his ownership over the suit property and has further held in C.A. No. 16CT filed on 19.09.1990thattheplaintiff'sownadmitted case in the plaint is that the appellants had purchased the suit property from
Col.

 Girdhar Singh and his family members and were in possession of the same and hence the Plaintiff was not entitled to declaration of his title, recovery of possession and injunction. In this case, therefore, the first appellate court had
decided
the core issue against the Plaintiff and no substantial question of law arose for decision in this case by the High Court under Section
100, CPC."


% - 
  % 
  


 
"
 


 

3
'

 - 
 
% 
  


 

 

 


"

 
 

3

 
 


 



 
 

3

 

  




A/<


"

 
 



;
"19.Thattheansweringdefendantalsofiled an application before the DM & Collector, South Tripura, Udaipur for redress and the answering defendants submits the photocopy of Khatian No.870 under Mouza Uttar Chandrapur, original which remained inthecustodyof plaintiffs and he also submits hand sketch Map of suit plot No.1623,1623,R.S.PlotNo.1622andother adjacent plots under MouzaCUttar Chandrapur No.41, Sheet No.2(P) of T.K. Matabariandtheansweringdefendantcrave the leave of the court filed the certified copies before the court of at the time of examination of the witnesses and also pray






 beforetheCourttofileanyotherdocuments ifavailableduringthecourseoftrial." [13] '

% - 
 
% 
 

 



 
"

 

 %
 % 

 3
 3





.

3
 


%% 





"

 3
  

3


"

  


"

 
 





%% 
 % 
+


%3
 






 
% 
3

- %

%





. %


 
-  
 %



%


%% 

"


%
  %


 

"



-%
+

% %

P. Purushottam Reddy and another vs. M/s. Pratap Steels Ltd.
 

AIR2002SC771,
"


 
 



;
"14.The subsequent events which are material or ought to be noticed by the appellate Court are only two i.e. (i) communication the order the competent authority (Urban Land Ceiling) holding the land of the appellants to be within ceiling limits, and (ii) order of the BFIRtobeasickcompany.Thesetwoevents aresubjectmatterofdocumentaryevidence and almost admitted between the parties. The High Court can be requested to take note of such subsequent events by bringing the relevant documents on record which being public documents would not require any formal proof. The High Court may take noteofsuchsubsequenteventsandtestthe validity judgment under appeal by referencetothoseevents alsoormould the relief suitably and as may be considered necessary."






 [14] (%%



'

% - 
 
% 





%% 





%
% 





%
C2


E. %
(%

 % 
. 






%

 6 


% 

%  

"

 %




%

% 
"%

 
  


6 





[15] '

% - 
  % 





 %


 D
% 

NorthEastern RailwayAdministration,Gorakhpurvs.BhagwanDas(D) by Lrs.,
 

AIR 2008 SC 2139 "


 
%
;
11. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel in the light of the documentsonrecord.Weareconstrainedto observe that the High Court has altogether failedtoconsidertheapplicationfiledbythe appellantunderOrder41Rule27 C.P.C. We also feel that even the application under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. has not been dealt with in its correct perspective and the High Court was in error in rejecting the same on thesolegroundthatsuchanapplicationwas not maintainable at the stage of second appeal. 12.

Thoughthegeneralruleisthatordinarily theappellatecourtshouldnottraveloutside therecordofthelowercourtandadditional evidence, whether oral or documentary is not admitted but Section
107C.P.C., which carvesout anexceptiontothe generalrule, enablesanappellatecourttotakeadditional evidence or to require such evidence to be taken subject to such conditions and limitations as may be prescribed. These conditions are prescribed under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C. Nevertheless, the additional evidence can be admitted only when the circumstances as stipulated in the said rule arefoundtoexist.






  admitevidencewhichoughttohave been admitted, (clause (a) of Sub rule(1))or (ii) the party seeking to produce additional evidence, establishes thatnotwithstandingtheexerciseof due diligence, such evidence was not within the knowledge or could not, after the exercise due diligence,beproducedbyhimatthe time when the decree appealed againstwaspassed,[clause(aa)of subCrule (1) inserted by Act 104 of 1976)]or (iii)theappellatecourtrequiresany document to be produced or any witnesstobeexaminedtoenableit to pronounce judgment, or for any othersubstantialcause.[clause(b) ofSubrule(1)].





[Emphasisadded] [16] '

% - 
 
% 


 
 %


 D
% 

Kausalyabai and Akkabai (Dead) by LRs. vs. Harishchandra Munnalal Gupta,  

(2009)5SCC129,

 
 






 .%


% D


  +" .



%


 D
% 


3
'

% - 
 
% 

Shyam Gopal Bindal & othersvs.LandAcquisitionOfficer&another
 

AIR 2010 SC 690

% 3
 .
>
Shyam Gopal Bindal&othersvs.LandAcquisitionOfficer&another


 
 


% 
"%
 6



-

%


%

%


 

%

%

 %


 
 %
.

 .

)

B&>

0C





>

 
 
3

 D
% 


 6.%
"



% 









  %

4 %
)


% 

" 



 

.

% %
  






%

 "

3

 
>
"
 

3

 


 

.
  

  %3


%.


% 
%


 

%


 3
"


"





(
 3
"

3

 

( 
 
"%
"
   

+
 


 


"

 3



%




. %
>

%
 % % % 


% 

 D
% 
"






( 
 



+
 


"


%% 

%




. %



 


%


 
% 

[17] >

%

 

 
% 
- % 
 3



%




%% 


 
"%
"


3

%




>


(%
,
 

 % 

%% 




 %

%












 





F

 3
D %
 

E. 

%3




3

A.
'  
  
# 
 

%
 




 ;






 "IntheCourtoftheSubCDivisionalMagistrate Udaipur,GomatiDistrict ORDERSHEET SriChittaRanjanDebnath S/ORamanandaBishnab aliasRamanandaDebnath ofUttarChandrapur Smt. Renubala Debnath, W/O Lal Mohan Debnath & Others Uttar Chandrapur ProceedingunderSection...........................ofthe TLR&LRAct,1960forcancellationof  AllotmentOrder Vs.

           

   

 !

"  #   

 

$ $%&'&$% Notice duly served, returned file with records. Sri Rakesh Debnath, S/OC Lt. Lal Mohan Debnath appeared in person. On being asked whether he is in possession over thelandinquestion,SriRakeshDebnath replied in the negative. Further, added that the land is under the possession of ChittaRn.Debnathforthepast5C6years. Sri Chitta Rn. Debnath appeared and contradicted. Stated that he has been possessing0.05acresoflandspreadover 2(two) Nos. R.S. PlotC1619 and 1623 for 0.03(0.02+0.01) and 0.02 acres is R.S. Plot No.C1622 by constructing dwelling housethereforthepast12years. Sri Benulal Bhowmik, S/OC Manoranjan Bhowmik appeared and stated that the land in question measuring 0.

05 acres is under possession Sri Chittta Rn. Debnath. Sri Anil Chakraborty, S/OC Lt. Jadab stated that he is well aware of the fact that a consideration money was exchanged between Sri Chitta Rn. Debnath and Sri Lal Mohan Debnath and hisfamilymembers. Atthattimehewas the Pradhan of a certain Panchayet. He confirmed the fact that a consideration money in the tune of Rs.25,000/C was exchanged between both the parties, of whichhewasawitness.






 statementofexCpradhanitisevidentthat Sri Chitta Rn. Debnath has been possessing the land since 1994 A.D. i.e. during the year when the allotment was formally made in favour of Lal Mohan DebnathandRenuBalaDebnath. The Tripura Land Revenue (Allotment of Land) Rules, 1980 has stated that allotment is made for agricultural purpose and also for construction of dwelling house. As apparent from the Col.C9ofKhatianNo.870itwasevidently allotted for agricultural purpose. The conditions as laid down in the relevant Rules,theallotteeshallhavetocultivate thelandbyhimself(Sec.RulesC5). It is once again reiterated that the O.P. viz. Rakesh Debnath, Renu Bala Debnath has admitted in ParaC5 of the Plaint in c/w TS Case No.

05/2010 that they have will fully allowed Sri Chitta Rn. Debnath to construct dwelling house thereon and takepossessionasrequired.Bydoingso, the O.P. have violated Rule 5 of TLR & LR(AllotmentofLand)Rules,1980. Thus,theallottehascommittedabreach oftheconditionasmentionedinTLR&LR (Allotment of Land) Rules 1980 and therefore the allotment order of below mentionedschedule:C T.K. Mouja Kh. No. R.S. Plot No. CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC Total Area Possess ion Sri Chitta Rn. Debnat h Mata bari Uttar Chand rapur 870 1623 1619 0.01 0.06 0.005 0.025 (() is hereby cancelled. Subsequently, the plotareawillberecordedinfavourofSri ChittaRn.Debnath. The O.P.

 denied to put his signature on the order sheet, hence his signature couldnotbeobtained. Matterisherebycalledoffanddisposed. Arrangeforsendingacopyoftheorderto the Tdr., I/C, CLR Section,  & party concerned.






 "IntheCourtoftheSubCDivisionalMagistrate Udaipur,GomatiDistrict ORDERSHEET ProceedingU/SSubCRule (VII)ofRule15ofthe TLR&LR(AllotmentofLand)Rules1962&SubC Rule (vi) of Rule 12 of the TLR & LR Rules 1980 forCancellationofAllotmentorder. SriChittaRanjanDebnath S/ORamanandaBishnab aliasRamanandaDebnath ofUttarChandrapur Smt. Renubala Debnath, W/O Lal Mohan Debnath & Others Uttar Chandrapur  Vs.

           *  

     !

"  #   

 

$ $%&'&$% Extractcopyoforder. Noticedulyservedreturnfiledwithrecords. Sri Rakesh Debnath, S/OC Lt. Lal Mohan Debnathappearedinpersononbeingasked whetherheisinpossessionoverthelandin question,SriRakeshDebnath replied inthe negative. Further, added that the land in under the possession of Chitta Rn. Debnath forthepast5C6years. Sri Chitta Rn. Debnath appeared and contradicted stated that he has been possessing 0.05 acres of land spread over 2(two) Nos. R.S. PlotC1619 and 1623 for 0.03(0.02+0.01) and 0.02 acres is R.S. Plot No.C1622 by constructing dwelling house thereforthepast12years. Sri Benulal Bhowmik, S/OC Manoranjan Bhowmikappearedandstatedthattheland in question measuring 0.

05 acres is under possessionofSriChitttaRn.Debnath. Sri Anil Chakraborty, S/OC Lt. Jadab stated that he is well aware of the fact that a consideration money was exchanged between Sri Chitta Rn. Debnath and Sri Lal MohanDebnathandhisfamilymembers.At that time he was the Pradhan of a certain Panchayet. He confirmed the fact that a consideration money is the tune Rs.25,000/C was exchanged between both theparties,ofwhichhewasawitness.






 Sri Rakesh Debnath denied the fact but failed to prove the contrary As per statement of exCpradhan it is evident that Sri Chitta Rn. Debnath has been possessing thelandsince1994A.D.i.e.duringtheyear when the allotment was formally made in favourofLalMohanDebnathandRenuBala Debnath. The Tripura Land Revenue (Allotment of Land)Rules,1980hasstatedthatallotment ismadeforagriculturalpurposeandalsofor constructionofdwellinghouse.Asapparent from the Col.C9 of Khatian No.870 it was evidently allotted for agricultural purpose. The conditions as laid down in the relevant Rules,theallotteeshallhavetocultivatethe landbyhimself(Sec.RulesC5). ItisonceagainreiteratedthattheO.P.viz.

 Rakesh Debnath, Renu Bala Debnath has admitted in ParaC5 of the Plaint in c/w TS Case No.05/2010 that they have willfully allowed Sri Chitta Rn. Debnath to construct dwellinghousethereonandtakepossession asrequired. Bydoingso,theO.P.haveviolatedRule5of TLR&LR(AllotmentofLand)Rules,1980. Thus,theallottehascommittedabreachof the condition as mentioned in TLR & LR (Allotment Land) Rules 1980 and therefore the allotment order of below mentionedschedule:C T.K. Mouja Kh. No. R.S. Plot No. Total Area Possessi on of Sri Chitta Rn. Debnath Mata bari Uttar Chandr apur 870 1623 1619 0.01 0.06 0.005 0.025 0.03 is hereby cancelled. Subsequently, the plot areawillberecordedinfavourofSriChitta Rn.Debnath. The O.P.

 denied to put his signature on the ordersheet,hencehissignaturecouldn'tbe obtained. Matterisherebycalledoffanddisposed. Arrange for sending a copy of the order to the Tdr., I/C, CLR Section, & party concerned.






  GovernmentofTripura OfficeoftheSubCDivisionalMagistrate Udaipur,GomatiDistrict, No.F.5(26)CSDM/UDP/REV/2012/176C78Dated,the21th Mar,2013 Copyto: 1.
TheInCCharge,CLRSection,UdaipurRevenueCirclefor informationwitharequesttoarrangenecessarycorrectionin theROR. 2.
TheTehsildarMatabariT.K.forinformationandnecessary action. 3.
SriChittaRanjanDebnathS/OCLt.RamanandaBaishnabalias ofRamanandaDebnathofUttarChandrapurforinformation. SubCDivisionalMagistrate Udaipur,GomatiDistrict & +, ,   - 

#"

. / !

/ 0   !

 [18] '

 - 
 
% 
.




 
-  
 %


 



 
 
3


"


 

% 





/0 /1 01/0



3




 
"


  
3





3



[19] >

  


 







%



/0 /1 01/0

 

3

A.
' 
.
 
  








+ % 
3
- %

 3



%


. %
 

 % 


-  

 
% 

%


 
 3
 %






 





/0 /1 01/1
 






. 
)%

D %


 3
"




 
& . 

& 


(%
/<=1


( 
 

 



%
% 
>

 
 3



 
3


"

 
 



 




 
 %% 


 



6 







.AGA.

 

.




% 


 
 
(
%

%



 

  


E. 


 
 



  

 3



"

 
 
 %  

 6 
. 
"%


 


 .

 %



"
.
 

- %


 
"%

 

 


[20]

>
North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur vs. Bhagwan Das (D) by Lrs.,

 D
% 
"
%


 

)

B&>

0C





 
%3
 .




;
"13.ItisplainthatunderClause(b)ofSub rule (1) of Rule 27 Order 41 C.P.C., with whichweareconcernedintheinstantcase, evidence may be admitted by an appellate authority if it 'requires' to enable it to pronounce judgment 'or for any other substantial cause'. The scope of the rule, in particular of Clause (b) was examined way backin1931bythePrivyCouncilin
 

,

  

1"

 ,

   2
3* $4)$  $5)6
Whileobservingthatthe provisions of Section

as elucidated by






 Order41Rule27areclearlynotintendedto allowlitigant,whohasbeenunsuccessfulin thelowercourt,topatchuptheweakparts ofhiscaseandfillupomissionsinthecourt ofappeal,itwasobservedasfollows: 'Under Clause (1) (b) it is only wheretheappellateCourt'requires' it, (i.e., finds it needful) that additional evidence can be admitted. It may be required to enable the Court to pronounce judgment or for any other substantialcause,butineithercase itmustbetheCourtthatrequiresit. This is the plain grammatical reading the subCclause. The legitimateoccasionfortheexercise of this discretion is not whenever before the appeal is heard a party applies to adduce fresh evidence, but 'when on examining the evidenceasitstandssomeinherent lacuna or defect becomes apparent.'" 
" 

 
% 
6 

?


. % @

 %

-  


3


%
"


 
  %


6




% 


- %.
"

 

%








 - %


.



-%
>

% 




%% 


 
% 

%













 % 
%


- %


 3



%




. %

%%  [21] )

 



 

3
'

 - 
 
% 
  
 %.



.


 %
 % 3

% 3





3

'

 



%% 

 


 
 



 

%






 
3
 . 
+ % 

 
-  


%

 

"

 


+" .



 

%






 

"
 

 %

%
%% 


 








"

  

  % 







 
 
% 
   

 
 

"

 

%

%





/0 /1 01/0

3

'




. %
,

  



 /= 01/9



( 
: 00

01//


 



 






" 

"


%

%

3
 







/0 /1 01/0
)
%  


D % 

 
% 




 

%%

%
"
"

 [22] +.
 


 
 
"



D 

 %
.



%
%%

3

"

& 

JUDGE