SUDHANGSHU MOHAN DEB (DEAD) BY LRS. versus NIRODA SUNDARI DEBIDHUP AND ORS

Citation: [2004] 2 S.C.R. 581 · Decided: 20-02-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BRIJESH KUMAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

-
SUDHANGSHU MOHAN DEB (DEAD) BY LRS. 
A 
v. 
NIRODA SUNDARI DEBIDHUP AND ORS. 
FEB RU ARY 20, 2004 
[BRIJESH KUMAR AND ARUN KUMAR, JJ.] 
B 
Land Laws: 
Tripura Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act, 1960-Sections 134, 135, 
136 and 43-Effect of sections 134 and 135-Held: All estates situated in C 
notified area vests in the Government free from all encumbrances and all 
right, title and interest of every intermediary in such estates gets extinguished-
However, by virtue of section 136 intermediary can retain possession of vested 
land subject to payment of land revenue directly to the Government-On facts, 
provisional Khaityan granted in favour of the party finalized and duly published, D 
challenged-On appeal Held: Once the final khatiyan is granted inf avour of 
the party, fresh right is created in his favour by State Government in whom 
entire land vests-Thus, khatiyan confers legal and valid right on grantee to 
remain in possession of suit land 
Code of Civil Procedure, I 908: 
Section I 44-Applicants dispossessed in execution of decree, which was 
set aside on appeal-Restitution of possession of land-Entitlement of-Held: 
E 
Applicants not entitled due to coming into force of I 960 Act which has the 
effect of taking away right of possession of land of the party who was earlier 
in possession of land-Tripura Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act, 1960. F 
Section I I-Plea entertained by forum below in previous litigation and 
not entertained in present litigation-Plea if barred by res judicata-Held: 
There was no adjudication on the issue involved in the previous litigation 
though order had become final-Hence, plea not barred by res judicata. 
Land of S acquired for public purpose was in excess of requirement. 
D-predecessor of appellant and J, nephew of S-predecessor of respondents 
applied for settlement of excess land. D was granted Takshishi Taluki 
rights and registered patta was executed in his favour. J encroached the 
581 
G 
H 
582 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2004] 2 S.C.R. 
A land. D filed eviction suit. During pendency, D sold the suit land to 
appellant. Appellant filed suit for declaration of Takshishi Taluki right 
and recovery of possession and suit was decreed. J then filed an appeal 
which was dismissed. He then filed second appeal. However, appellant in 
execution of decree took possession of th~ suit land. Meanwhile, Tripura 
Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act, 1960 was passed and all estates 
B situated in the notified area vested in the Government free from all 
encumbrances and all right, title and interest of every intermediary in such 
estates got extinguished. Appellant applied for fresh patta as a Raiyat 
under· section 136 and provisional khatiyan was granted in his favour. J 
filed an appeal whic.h was allowed since the land in question vested in the 
C Government and appellant lost his right to seek its possession in view of 
the 1960 Act. Appellant filed an application to bring on record by way of 
additional evidence that after the vesting of the land in t.he Government, 
provisional khatiyan was granted in his favour. Application was rejected 
as Khatiyan was still provisional. After contest khatiyan was finalized in 
favour of appellant and was duly published. Appellant then filed suit for . 
D declaration of his title to the land and confirmation of possession in his 
favour and injunction. S-Original owner also filed suit under section 144 
CPC for restitution of possession of the suit land to him in view of the 
decree in execution whereof he was dispossessed having been set aside. 
Trial Court decreed the suit filed by the appellant and dismissed the suit 
E of S. Lower Appellate Court dismissed the suit for possession filed by 
appellant while the suit for restitution of possession was decreed. Appellant 
then filed a second appeal which was dismissed. Hence the present appeal. 
Appellants contended that their right to possession of land is legal, 
valid and justified while respondents have no right whatsoever to seek 
F possession of the land. 
Respondents contended that the finalisation of khatiyan in favour 
of the appellants was wrong as it was contrary to rules; that in view of 
provisions of Section 144 CPC respondents were entitled to restitution of 
possession of the lands; and that the Judicial Commissioner did not 
G entertain the plea based on grant of fresh khatiyan in favour of the present 
appellant and as such the decision becoming final it debars the appellant 
from r

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