AFTARUDDIN (DEAD) REP. THR. LRS. versus RAMKRISHNA DATTA ALIAS BABUL DATTA & ORS.

Citation: [2017] 12 S.C.R. 85 · Decided: 08-12-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: MADAN B. LOKUR, DEEPAK GUPTA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2017] l 2 S.C.R. 85 
AFfARUDDIN (DEAD) REP. THR. LRS. 
v. 
RAMKRISHNA DATTA ALIAS BABUL DATTA & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 9040 of2013) 
DECEMBER 08, 2017 
[MADAN B. LOKUR AND DEEPAK GUPTA, JJ.] 
Tripura Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act, 1960 - s.108 
A 
B 
- Bar under - Appellant-defendant was an under-raiyat (tenant) of c 
the suit land, while one 'SJK' was the raiyat (owner) - Allegedly 
sale deed dated 1/.01.1971 was executed by appellant transferring 
the suit land in favour of 'MB', daughter of .. SJK' - 'MB' and 'SJK' 
in turn transferred the suit land in favour of plaintiffs-respondents 
- However, in the revenue record, the appellant was shown to be in 
possession of the suit land - Accordingly, suit by respondents for D 
declaration of their title and also for injunction against appellant 
from interfering in the suit land - Suit dismissed by trial court holding 
that the appellant being under-raiyat could not have transferred 
his rights in the suit land in view of bar u/s. 108 - High Court held 
that since in the sale deed appellant represented himself to be a 
raiyat and not an under-raiyat, therefore, s.108 had no application 
- Held: Under s.108, an under-raiyat is prohibited from transferring 
his interest as under-raiyat in any land - However, High Court laid 
great emphasis on the fact that in the sale deed appellant was 
described to be a raiyat - This cannot in any manner validate the 
sale deed which is otherwise totally against law - Sale deed dated 
11.01.71 was executed showing appellant as a raiyat to get over 
the bar of s.108 - This is what s.108 prohibits - On facts, the sale 
deed was never executed by the appellant - The statutory protection 
granted uls.108 could not have been taken away by fraud committed 
E 
F 
by the then raiyat - High Court mis-interpreted the provisions of G 
s.108 - Judgment of High Court is set aside and that of trial court 
is restored. 
· 
Tripura Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act, 1960 - s. l 08 
- Purpose of - Discussed. 
85 
H 
86 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2017] 12 S.C.R. 
A 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 A bare reading of Section 108, Tripura Land 
Revenue and Land Reforms Act, 1960 makes it absolutely clear 
that an under-raiyat is prohibited from transferring his interest 
as under-raiyat in any land though this interest is a heritable 
B interest. Sub-section (2) of Section 108 provides that no under-
raiyat can be evicted except in accordance with the provisions of 
the 1960 Act. The 1960 Act was enacted as an agrarian reform 
legislation and the purpose of Section 108 is to prevent the under-
raiyats or tenants from being evicted or being forcefully or 
C dishonestly compelled to transfer their rights as under-raiyats. 
[Para 5] [88-E-F] 
1.2 The High Court laid great emphasis on .the fact that in 
the sale deed appellant wass described to be a raiyat. This cannot 
in any manner validate the sale deed which is otherwise totally 
D against law. Obviously, a Sub Registrar could not have registered 
a sale deed where the seller has described himself as an under-
raiyat. Further, the vendee 'MB' was none other than the 
daughter of 'SJK', the raiyat. A few months after appellant 
executing the sale deed on 11.01.71, 'MB' and her father 'SJK' 
E 
F 
G 
H 
sold the entire land in favour of the plaintiffs/respondents. It is 
obvious that the sale deed dated 11.01.71 was executed showing 
appellant as a raiyat to get over the bar of Section 108. This is 
what Section 108 prohibits. The plaintiffs who were subsequent 
purchasers cannot take benefit of the subterfuge and fraud 
committed by 'SJK' and 'MB'. Their remedy, if any, lay in taking 
action against 'SJK' and 'MB', who were not even impleaded as 
parties in the suit. The High Court totally mis-interpreted the 
provisions of Section 108. The protection under Section 108 of 
the 1960 Act which is a statutory protection could not have been 
taken away by the subterfuge committed by the then raiyat. [Paras 
6, 7] [88-G-H; 89-A-B] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURiSDICTlON : Civil Appeal No. 9040 
of2013. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 08.06.2005 of the High Court 
of Gauhati in R. S. A. No. 31 of 1996. 
AFfARUDDIN (DEAD) REP. THR. LRS. v. RAMKRISHNA 
87 
DATTA ALIAS BABUL DATTA 
Ms. Madhu Moolchandani, Adv for the Appellants. 
A 
Rajiv Mehta, Adv for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
DEEPAK GUPTA, J. 1. Ramkrishna Datta, Dhirendra Chandra 
Ghosh and Lalit Mohan Ghosh, filed a sui

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.