Smt. Ramani Debbarma and ors vs Shri Jira Kumar Reang (Jiro Kumar Reang) and ors

Page 1 of 13 2026:THC:609



HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA


RSA 08 of 2025

1. Smt. Ramani Debbarma, W/O. Late Laipada Debbarma, Resident of
Machkumbhi, Police Station- Gandacherra, District- Dhalai Tripura.

2. Smt. Judhapati Debbarma (Reang), D/O. Late Laipada Debbarma, W/O. Shri
Rabiroy Reang, Resident of Machkumbhi, Police Station-Gandacherra, District-
Dhalai, Tripura.

3. Smt. Prabhati Debbarma (Reang), D/O. Late Laipada Debbarma, W/O. Shri
Manasai Reang, Resident of Machkumbhi, Police Station-Gandacherra, District-
Dhalai, Tripura.

4. Shri Diket Debbarma, S/O. Late Laipada Debbarma, Resident of
Machkumbhi, Police Station-Gandacherra, District-Dhalai, Tripura.

5. Smt. Debika Chakma (Debbarma), W/O. Late Laxman Debbarma, Resident
of Machkumbhi, Police Station-Gandacherra, District-Dhalai, Tripura.

6. Shri Dhijendra Debbarma, S/O. Late Laxman Debbarma, Resident of
Machkumbhi, Police Station-Gandacherra, District-Dhalai, Tripura.

7. Smt. Dhanta Debbarma, D/O. Late Laxman Debbarma, Resident of
Machkumbhi, Police Station-Gandacherra, District-Dhalai, Tripura.

8. Shri Bishal Debbarma, S/O. Late Laxman Debbarma, Resident of
Machkumbhi, Police Station-Gandacherra, District-Dhalai, Tripura.
..........Appellant(s)
Versus

1. Shri Jira Kumar Reang (Jiro Kumar Reang), S/O. Late Khushi Dhan Reang,
Resident of Machkumbhi, Police Station-Gandacherra, District-Dhalai, Tripura.

2. Smt. Biparong Reang, Daughter of Late Gurudayal Reang, Wife of Shri
Bhagyaram Reang, Resident of Machkumbhi, Police Station-Gandacherra,
District-Dhalai, Tripura.

3. Shri Surendra Reang, Son of Late Gurudayal Reang, Resident of
Machkumbhi, Police Station-Gandacherra, District-Dhalai, Tripura.
..........Respondent(s)

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Kousik Datta, Advocate.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Gobinda Debbarma, Advocate.

Date of hearing : 17.04.2026 .

Date of pronouncement : 14.05.2026.

Whether fit for reporting : YES.

Page 2 of 13 2026:THC:609



HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO

JUDGMENT & ORDER




This RSA is preferred by the appellants challenging the judgment
dt. 16.08.2024 of the District Judge, Dhalai Judicial District, Ambassa in Title
Appeal No. 05 of 2022 confirming the judgment dated 26.09.2022 of the Civil
Judge, Sr. Div., Court No.1, Dhalai Judicial District, Ambassa in TS 10/2019.
2. The appellants are plaintiffs in the suit.
3 . They had filed the said suit to declare their right, title and interest
over the A schedule land; for recovery of possession of B schedule land from
defendant No.1 by evicting him from the said land and by removing all sorts
of obstruction/construction erected thereon; and also for recovery of
possession of C schedule land from defendant No.2 by evicting the defendant
No.2 therefrom by removing all sorts of obstruction/construction erected
thereon.
4. It is not in dispute that the extent of the A schedule land is 2.09
acres, and both B schedule land (3 gandas) and C schedule land (5 gandas) are
both part of the A schedule land.
The case of the plaintiffs/appellants:
5. The plaintiffs are legal heirs of Lt. Laipada Debbarma and
appellant No.1 is his wife.
6 . Lt. Laipada Debbarma and the appellant No.1 were accorded
sanction of allotment of 2.14 acres through allotment order No. 44/199 dated
04.11.1997 which was also recorded in Sabek Khatian No. 469 of Mouja
Laxmipur, Tehsil Gandacherra appertaining to Sabek Plot No. 1052/1433 and
1052/1434 for of which 0.05 acres had been acquired by the Government of

Page 3 of 13 2026:THC:609



Tripura for the purpose of construction of Gandacherra-Ramnagar road. The
balance 2.09 acres is the A schedule land.
7. The plaintiffs contended in the plaint that after revisonal survey
operation, the allotted land of the plaintiff No.1 and Laipada Debbarma was
recorded in finally published Khatian No. 267 of Mouja Laxmipur, Tehsil
Gandacherra appertaining to Hal Plot No. 1797, 1798 & 1799, CS plot No.
1052/1434(p), 1052/1433 (p) and 1052(p) which is described in the A
Schedule.
8. It is the case of the plaintiffs that they had good relationship with
one Surendra Reang residing in the same locality and the said person had
approached them in December, 2016 for permitting the defendants to reside
for about a year and a half in a part of A Schedule land which had been fallow
and vacant by constructing dwelling hut on condition that they would
handover vacant peaceful possession to the plaintiffs after completion of the
said period of one and half years, as they were landless poor. Accordingly, the
plaintiffs’ claim that they handed over the B Schedule suit land which was
part of the A Schedule suit land to Defendant No.1 and C schedule suit land
which was also part of A Schedule suit land to Defendant No.2 on the
intervention of the said Surendra Reang and that the two defendants with the
permission of the plaintiffs, had constructed dwelling huts over the B and C
schedule suit land, respectively.
9. Plaintiffs contended that the defendants did not vacate the suit
land after the completion of the period for which they were permitted to stay
there and refused to do so and, therefore, they had to file the suit for the above
reliefs.

Page 4 of 13 2026:THC:609



The case of the defendants:
10. Sri Surendra Reang was also impleaded as proforma respondent
in the suit along with defendant Nos. 1 and 2.
11. The written statement was filed by all the defendants contending
that Sri Surendra Reang and his wife Rankabari Reang got allotment of some
land vide sanction order No. 1306 dated 04.07.1997 issued by then SDO,
Gandacherra, Dhalai District for a plot of land measuring .80 acres. They
contended that the plaint B and C schedule land form part of the said 0.80
acres. They contended that the plain B and C Schedule land is part of the land
mentioned in old Khatian No. 470 of Mouja Laxmipur, Tehsil Gandacherra
which was opened in the name of the proforma defendant and his wife and it
was also demarcated as per the map existed before the Revisional survey of
2001-02.
12. They contended that on 27.03.2018, the proforma defendant filed
one application under Section 95 of the Tripura Land Revenue and Land
Reforms Act before the DM & Collector, Dhalai District, Jawaharnagar for
correction of the disputed land along with his land; on 05.04.2018 the said
official forwarded it to the SDM, Gandacherra through a communication dated
05.04.2018; and the then SDM, Gandacherra conducted a field inquiry and
submitted one compliance report to the DM & Collector, Dhalai, Tripura.
13. They contended that the said report states that the finally
published khatian and maps of Mouja Laxmipur are not in proper order
because during 2001-02 revisional survey was done in traditional method in
Laxmipur Mouja resulting in changes in positions which were simultaneously
reflected by the revenue field functionaries in the land records/maps available

Page 5 of 13 2026:THC:609



at that time. They contended that the said report also states that the mismatch
is because of the negligence on the part of the survey team deputed for the
said task and they should have taken modified maps available in the respective
Tehsils as reference for their survey work.
14. They further contended that the actual record and physical
location of many public occupation and/or natural fixed point are so different
that proper demarcation is not possible even with the help of expert field
functionaries.
15. They denied the case set up by the plaintiffs and contended that
the suit is filed by suppressing material facts in order to grab the land of the
proforma defendant and the other defendants.
16. They also denied that the defendants and the pro-defendants were
in possession of any plot of land of the plaintiffs. According to them, the
plaintiffs were trying to take the benefit of the wrong mapping using the false
plea that they were in possession of the proforma defendant’s land.
The issues framed in the suit:
17. On the basis of these pleadings, the trial court framed the
following issues:
I. Is the suit maintainable in its present form and nature?
II. Whether the plaintiffs have right, title and interest over
the ‘A’ scheduled suit land?
III. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to recover the
possession of ‘B’ scheduled suit land from the defendant
No.1 by evicting her from the said suit land?
IV. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to get the decree as
prayed for or any other relief/reliefs in this suit?

18. The plaintiffs examined PWs 1, 2 & 3 and exhibited nine
documents.

Page 6 of 13 2026:THC:609



19. The defendants examined three witnesses and marked six
documents.
20. The trial court dismissed the suit which was also confirmed by
the lower appellate court.
The RSA:
21 . In this RSA, the following substantial questions of law arise:
(i) whether the judgments of the trial court and the lower
appellate court are perverse?
(ii) whether there has been manifest misreading of evidence by
the trail court and lower appellate court and whether they
have ignored material evidence warranting exercise of
jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC?


22 . Counsel for appellants contended that when the plaintiffs
produced the Allotment order No.44/99 dt.4.11.1997 (Exhibit No.1) which is
their document of title/deed and the Kahtian No.469 ( Exhibit No.2) , their
suit should have been decreed more particularly when the defendants had not
produced in their evidence the sanction order No.1306 dt.4.11.1997 relied on
by them; that the said courts misdirected themselves and perversely held that
the plaintiffs did not produce any deed in the suit in support of their claim for
title to A schedule property when Exhibit No.1 has been filed by plaintiffs;
and there is a presumption of genuineness of the Khatian No.469 (exhibit .2)
under section 43 (3) of the Tripura Land reforms and Land revenue Act,1960
which has been ignored. He also contended that there is a manifest misreading
of evidence particularly the communication dt.16.4.2018 from the ADM &
Collector (Exhibit C) relied on by defendants.

Page 7 of 13 2026:THC:609



23 . The counsel for the respondents refuted the said contentions and
supported the judgments of the trial court and the lower appellate court.
Consideration by this Court:
24. The suit being one where declaration of title is being sought by
plaintiffs of A schedule land, the Courts below erred in not giving any weight
to the Allotment order No.44/99 dt.4.11.1997 ( Exhibit No.1) produced by the
plaintiffs.
25 . The said document is an allotment by the Collector, Dhalai
district under rule 12 of the Rules framed under the Tripura Land Revenue and
Land Reforms (Allotment of Land),1980 framed under the Tripura Land
Reforms and Land Revenue Act,1960. Such a statutory allotment order cannot
be ignored by the both the courts when it still stands and has not been doubted
by anyone or set aside by any authority.
26. More importantly, the proforma defendant, who based his claim
on the sanction order No.1306 dt.4.11.1997, had not even exhibited it in his
evidence. This is an important document whose production by the defendants
is absolutely necessary to consider their claim of denial of title of the
plaintiffs.
27. Non-production of the same should have prompted the courts
below to draw an adverse inference against the defendants under Section 114
(g) of the Evidence Act,1882. This is a clear error committed by both the trail
court and lower appellate court.
28. The trial court, in spite of having noticed that the plaintiff’s claim
to the subject land is based on Exhibit-1 (which is the order of allotment No.
44/99 dt. 04.11.1997 showing the allotment of 2.14 acres made to Laipada

Page 8 of 13 2026:THC:609



Debbarma and to the appellant No.1 by the then District Collector,
Gandacherra) which is also reiterated in Khatian No. 469 (Exhibit-2) and
th
khatian No.267 (Exhibit-3) , holds that the 4 plaintiff, who was examined as
a witness, admitted in his oral evidence that the plaintiffs did not submit any
deed in the suit, as one of the main reasons for denying relief to the plaintiffs.
The lower appellate court also did the same thing.
29 . When the Exhibit No.1 allotment letter dt. 04.11.1997 is the
source of title of the plaintiffs, and is the document on which they are relying
on to prove their title, both courts could not have held that they did not submit
any deed. This is utterly perverse.
30 . Both the Courts also erred in ignoring the fact that the record of
rights Exhibit 2 i.e. Khatian No.469 and Exhibit-3 , the Khatian No.267 of
Mouja Laxmipur produced by plaintiffs are presumed to be correct until the
contrary is proved under Section 43(3) of the Tripura Land Reforms and Land
Revenue Act,1960.
31. They failed to note that they had not been corrected by the State
Government’s revenue officials inspite of the grievance raised by the
proforma defendant on 27.3.2018 before the DM & Collector, Dhalai under
Section 95 of the Act.
32. The Courts below also erred in not taking note of the admission
of defendant no.1 (DW2) in his cross examination that he is occupying part of
the suit land. Defendant no.2 (DW3) admitted in his cross examination that he
was tutored by the proforma defendant to say what he deposed. Both
defendant no.1 (DW2) and defendant no.2 (DW3) had also stated in their cross

Page 9 of 13 2026:THC:609



examination that they cannot say the Dag number and Khatian number of the
land which they are occupying.
33. In the light of the above evidence, no reasonable person could
have come to a conclusion that they were in fact in possession of land allotted
allegedly to proforma defendant and the evidence of the plaintiffs in that
regard therefore ought to have been accepted by the courts below.
34. If the case of the defendants is that the dag No.s 1052/1436 and
1052/1435 in the Khatian no.470 filed by them as exhibit A, were wrongly
given DagNo.s 1868 and 1869, instead of no.s 1797 and 1798 in Exhibit D-
Khatian No.314, as observed by the Courts below, the only remedy of the
proforma defendant was to have it corrected by the Revenue Officials under
the Act.
35 . In Exhibit C letter dt.16.04.2018 of the SDM, Gandacherra to the
District Magistrate and Collector relied on by defendants, in fact it was held
that it is not possible to make any recommendation for correction of records
and it is desirable to conduct survey with modern equipment.
36. Ignoring this important circumstance , both courts erred in relying
on Exhibit C- letter dt.16.04.2018 of the SDM, Gandacherra to the District
Magistrate and Collector wherein he expressed some doubt about the
correctness of the revisional survey done during 2001-02 and suspecting a
mismatch between the land records and maps published after the 2007 re-
survey, and dismissing the plaintiffs’ suit.
37 . The Courts below also failed to note that there is no reference to
Late Laipada Debbarma and the plaintiff no.1 in that letter. There is also no
reference therein to the Allotment letter dt.4.11.1997 ( Exhibit No.1) issued to

Page 10 of 13
2026:THC:609



them or to the Khatian No.469 ( exhibit-2) or Khatian No.267 (exhibit -3)
produced by them. Long years after the issuance of the allotment letter and the
said Khatians, the same cannot be doubted on basis of Exhibit C.
38. The Courts below also failed to note that application for
correction of records under Section 95 filed by proforma defendant appears
was only with respect of land allegedly claimed by him, but, the plaintiffs
were not put on notice of any such application by him for correction of their
land records and they had no opportunity to contest his plea in that regard.
39 . So this document cannot be used by defendants to doubt the
Allotment letter dt.4.11.1997 and the Khatian no.469 produced by plaintiffs.
40. In my opinion, there is a manifest misreading of evidence by the
courts below as regards this document.
41. Moreover , the trial Court observed that the failure of the
plaintiffs to make any claim against the proforma defendant Surendra Reang
would result in any finding given not operating as res judicata in a subsequent
suit against him. Contradicting itself, the trial court again says that the fact
that a party is described as a proforma defendant or that no relief is claimed
against him is by itself not sufficient to avoid the bar of res judicata .
42. This reasoning is bizarre and this point is wholly irrelevant to the
suit. What would happen if the proforma defendant were to subsequently file a
suit is a wholly irrelevant consideration for the trial court to have taken into
account for denying relief to the plaintiffs.
43. Though both the courts below made comments on Ex.8 and 9 , i n
my opinion, nothing much turns on them as they are decisions purportedly of

Page 11 of 13
2026:THC:609



the Bru Social Convention, a local non political social organization, which has
no judicial powers.
44. When the plaintiffs preferred an appeal before the District Judge,
Dhalai, he practically copied the entire reasoning of the trial court verbatim
and dismissed the appeal.
45. A First Appellate Court is expected to re-appreciate the evidence
adduced in the trial court and independently come to a conclusion. It is not
expected to simply copy the trial court’s judgment in almost all respects and
affirm the trial court’s verdict.
46. The lower Appellate Court also perversely noted that the
plaintiffs could not adduce any document before the appellate court in their
favour.
47 . When evidence is already adduced in the trial court and the
allotment letter issued to the first plaintiff’s husband had already been marked
in the trial court, there was no necessity for the plaintiffs to again lead
evidence in the first appellate court.
1
48 . In Yadarao Dajiba Shrawane v. Nanilal Harakchand Shah , the
Supreme Court held :
“31.… The position is well settled that when the judgment
of the final court of fact is based on misinterpretation of
documentary evidence or on consideration of inadmissible
evidence or ignoring material evidence, the High Court in
second appeal is entitled to interfere with the judgment”
(emphasis supplied)

1
(2002) 6 SCC 404, at page 414 :

Page 12 of 13
2026:THC:609



2
,
49. In Nazir Mohamed v. J. Kamala the same was reiterated in the
:
following terms
“33.4. The general rule is, that the High Court will not
interfere with the concurrent findings of the courts below. But it
is not an absolute rule. Some of the well-recognised exceptions
are where : (i) the courts below have ignored material evidence
or acted on no evidence; (ii) the courts have drawn wrong
inferences from proved facts by applying the law erroneously; or
(iii) the courts have wrongly cast the burden of proof. A decision
based on no evidence, does not refer only to cases where there is
a total dearth of evidence, but also refers to case, where the
evidence, taken as a whole, is not reasonably capable of
supporting the finding.”
(emphasis supplied)

3
50. In C. Doddanarayana Reddy v. C. Jayarama Reddy , it was
held :
“28. Recently in another judgment in State of Rajasthan v.
4
Shiv Dayal , it was held that a concurrent finding of the fact is
binding, unless it is pointed out that it was recorded dehors the
pleadings or it was based on no evidence or based on misreading
of the material on records and documents. The Court held as
under : (SCC p. 640, para 16)
“16. When any concurrent finding of fact is assailed in second
appeal, the appellant is entitled to point out that it is bad in law
because it was recorded dehors the pleadings or it was based on
no evidence or it was based on misreading of material
documentary evidence or it was recorded against any provision
of law and lastly, the decision is one which no Judge acting
judicially could reasonably have reached.” (emphasis supplied)

2
(2020) 19 SCC 57, at page 68
3
(2020) 4 SCC 659 : (2020) 3 SCC (Civ) 117, at page 668 :
4
(2019) 8 SCC 637

Page 13 of 13
2026:THC:609




51. I am satisfied that the findings of both the Courts are perverse,
that they have ignored material evidence and they have also misread the
documentary evidence.
52. Therefore, the Second Appeal is allowed, both the judgments of
the trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court are set aside and the suit of
plaintiffs is decreed. No costs.
53. Copy of this judgment be placed in the service record of the trial
Court Judge (as he is still in service) since this Court disapproves of the
manner in which he dealt with the issues in the suit in a very superficial and
perverse way.
Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.


(M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO, CJ)




PULAK BANIK
Digitally signed by PULAK BANIK
Date: 2026.05.14 15:46:52 +05'30'