SMT. PUSPA RANI GOSWAMI vs SRI UDDHAB DATTA AND OTHERS

Page 1 of 11 2026:THC:1210
TRHC010009392026

HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA


RSA No.22/2026


Smt. Puspa Rani Goswami, (also known as Smt. Puspa Rani Baishnab, wife of
Sri Binode Baishnab/Binode Bihari Goswami), Daughter of Late Gopal Chand
Goswami, of Bajendra Nagar/Ramendra Nagar, Post Office and Police
Station-Sabroom, District-South Tripura.
……… Defendant no.1/Appellant(s).

V E R S U S

1. Sri Uddhab Datta, Son of Late Keshabananda Datta, Village-Sarashima,
P.S.- Belonia, District-South Tripura.

2. Sri Babul Debnath, Son of Late Jogendra Debnath, Village-Sarashima, Post
Office-Sarashima, Police Station-Belonia, District-South Tripura.

3. Smt. Kajal Debnath, W/O. Late Dhana Debnath, Shyamalibazar, Post
Office-Rishyamuk, Police Station-Belonia, District-South Tripura.

4. Sri Rabindra Debnath, S/O. Late Dhana Debnath, Shymalibazar, Post
Office-Rishyamuk, Police Station-Belonia, District-South Tripura.

5. Smt. Namita Debnath, D/O. Late Dhana Debnath, Resident of Sripur,
Hrishyamukh, P.S.- Belonia, South Tripura.

6. Sri Juna Debnath, S/O. Late Jogendra Debnath of East Sarashima, Post
Office-Sarashima, Police Station-Belonia, District-South Tripura.

7. Shri Gautam Debnath, S/O. Late Sadhan Debnath, Resident of East
Sarashima P.O.- Sarashima P.S.- Belonia, District-South Tripura.

8. Sri Subrata Debnath, S/O. Late Sadhan Debnath, Resident of East
Sarashima, P.O.- Sarashima, P.S.- Belonia, District- South Tripura.

9. Smt. Kajal Debnath, W/O. Shri Nikhil Debnath, Village-Haripur, P.O.-
Hrishyamukh P.S.- Belonia, District-South Tripura.

10. Smt. Anjali Debnath, W/O. Shri Dipak Debnath, Village-Kalma, P.O.-
Muhuripur P.S.- Baikhora, District-South Tripura.

11. Smt. Bijali Debnath, W/O. Shri Ramu Debnath, Resident of Shal Tilla,
P.O.- Belonia, P.S.- Belonia, District-South Tripura.

12. Smt. Putul Datta, W/O. Late Babul @ Babla Datta, Village-Amla
Para,(West), P.O.-Belonia, P.S.- Belonia, South Tripura.

13. Shri Sayantan Datta @ Baban Datta, S/O. Late Babul @ Babla Datta,
Village-Amla Para, (West), P.O.- Belonia, P.S.- Belonia, South Tripura.

14. Shri Santanu Datta @ Tutan Datta, S/O. Late Babul @ Babla Datta,
Village-Amla Para,(West) P.O.- Belonia, P.S.- Belonia, South Tripura.
……… Respondent(s).


For Defendant no.1(s) : Mr. T.D. Majumder, Sr. Advocate,
Mr. Dalit Kalai, Advocate,
Mr. K.L. Debbarma, Advocate.



For Respondent(s) : None.

Page 2 of 11 2026:THC:1210
TRHC010009392026

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


CAV reserved on : 07.08.2026 .

Judgment delivered on : 02.09.2026.

Whether fit for reporting : YES .



JUDGMENT & ORDER


This RSA is filed challenging the judgment and decree
dt.31.03.2026 in Title Appeal No.01 of 2020 of the District Judge, South
Tripura, Belonia reversing the judgment dt.20.01.2020 in Title Suit No.03 of
2016 of the Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Belonia, South Tripura.
2. The Defendant no.1 herein is the first defendant in the suit. She
was described in the plaint cause title as Smt. Puspa Rani Goswami.
The suit :
3. The plaintiff/respondent No.1 filed the said suit against the
Defendant no.1 and the respondents No.2 to 14 (other defendants) for
declaration of the plaintiff’s title to the suit schedule properties, i.e. item No.I
as purchaser and item No.II as owner by adverse possession; a declaration that
the Defendant no.1 and the other respondents have no right, title, interest or
possession of the suit schedule properties; that his name be recorded in the
record of rights as the sole and absolute owner of the said properties; and for a
permanent injunction restraining the Defendant no.1 and the other respondents
from disturbing his peaceful possession, user and enjoyment of the properties.
4. The plaintiff contended that since 1973 his father Keshabananda
Datta was in khas possession of the suit schedule properties which were
owned by one Gopal Chand Goswami, and the latter prepared a plan in
collusion and connivance with one Monoranjan Podder and succeeded in

Page 3 of 11 2026:THC:1210
TRHC010009392026

killing the plaintiff’s father on 02.03.1997. According to him, his deceased
father had been in possession of the land from at least 1973 till his death and
thereafter, the plaintiff and his brother were in possession of the properties
continuously, exclusively in a hostile manner openly adverse to the true owner
Gopal Chand Goswami and his legal heirs.
5. According to the plaintiff, in 1980 in revision of earlier C.S.
operation started at the suit mouja, the name of the brother of the plaintiff
Babul Datta was recorded and though this was challenged by Gopal Chand
Goswami and his successors, who are the defendants, on 19.07.1987 the rights
of the plaintiff/respondent No.1 and his brother got perfected.
6. It is contended that in 1993 the Defendant no.1, with the help of
certain political persons, tried to oust the plaintiff and his brother forcefully
and illegally, but did not succeed because of the resistance put up by the
plaintiff.
7. He contended that in 1997 the Defendant no.1 approached the
plaintiff representing that her father was seriously ill and she needed sum of
Rs.10,000/- and promised to execute any document necessary to transfer title
to the plaintiff, if the plaintiff gave her Rs.10,000/-. It is stated that thereafter
the father of the Defendant no.1 died and she also executed a sale deed
(Exhibit-3) in respect of the suit schedule properties on 20.02.1997, which was
also registered.
8. It is also contended that the Defendants No.9 to 11 transferred
their claims in respect of a part of the suit schedule properties (item No.II of
the schedule) to the plaintiff by a registered document on 17.06.2013
admitting the hostile title of the plaintiff on the basis of this long possession

Page 4 of 11 2026:THC:1210
TRHC010009392026

over the property. It is also contended that he applied for mutation and the
same was granted.
9. According to him, the defendants No.2 to 8 started to claim that
the Defendant no.1’s father Gopal Chand Goswami had another daughter by
name Bishnu Priya Debnath, that they are her successors and that they are also
co-sharers in the suit schedule properties.
10. He further contended that the defendant no.s 2 to 8 got an
application filed for cancellation of mutation in the plaintiff’s favour on false
and frivolous grounds and the same was erroneously allowed on 18.10.2014
by the Deputy Collector and Magistrate, Belonia, South Tripura and that the
said order is also challenged and needs to be set aside.
11. He further contended that on 15.02.2015, there was an attempt to
dispossess him from the land and, therefore, he filed the suit.
The stand of defendant no.1/appellant:
12. The Defendant no.1 filed the written statement denying the
averments in the plaint.
13. In the written statement, she described herself as Puspa Rani
Goswami @ Puspa Rani Baishnab and contended that she did not execute any
document in favour of the plaintiff for selling the suit land.
14. According to her, the document pleaded by the plaintiff is a
forged document created with their ill intention to occupy the land of the
Defendant no.1 and the other defendants.
15. She also alleged that defendants No.9 to 11 are close relatives of
the plaintiff and he colluded with them and got prepared the other documents
on 17.06.2013.

Page 5 of 11 2026:THC:1210
TRHC010009392026

16. She also pleaded that the mutation effected of the suit land in the
name of the plaintiff had been cancelled by the competent authority and he
had no right, title or interest over the suit land. She claimed that she along
with defendants No.2 to 8 is the absolute and lawful owner of the suit
schedule property.
The written statement of defendant no.s 2 to 8:
17. The defendants No.2 to 8 filed the written statement contending
that the original owner of the land was Gopal Chand Goswami and their
mother Bishnu Priya Goswami and the Defendant no.1 were his children.
They denied the possession of the plaintiff.
The decision of the Trial Court:
18. The trial Court dismissed the suit.
19. It held that the Defendant no.1 had denied and disputed her
signature upon the sale deed dt.20.02.1997 and the plaintiff had not examined
the Record Keeper of the Registrar Office, Belonia to prove the sale deed and
that not even an Attesting Witness is produced. It further held that the sale
deed was executed by one Puspa Bala Goswami, but the plaintiff had filed the
suit against Puspa Rani Goswami and the plaintiff did not attempt to prove
that both the persons are one and the same.
20. It also held that though there was a mutation made in the name of
the plaintiff and his brother, the same was later cancelled on 15.09.2014 and
the Finally Published Khatian corrected thereafter had a presumptive value
about its correctness.
21. He further held that the plaintiff had not been able to show that he
had acquired title by adverse possession to item No.II of the suit schedule
property.

Page 6 of 11 2026:THC:1210
TRHC010009392026

The First Appeal:
22. Challenging the same, the plaintiff filed an Appeal, i.e. T.A.
No.01 of 2020 before the District Judge.
23. The said Appeal was allowed on 31.03.2026.
24. The Lower Appellate Court considered the contention of the
Defendant no.1 as to whether she had sold the suit land to the plaintiff or not
because the registered sale deed mentions the name of Puspa Bala Goswami.
24A. The Appellate Court held that a registered sale deed carries a
strong presumption of validity and genuineness and cannot be casually
disregarded as nominal or a sham, because registration is not a mere
procedural formality but a solemn act which imparts sanctity to the document.
25. The Lower Appellate Court then held that in the trial Court when
the plaintiff sought a temporary injunction in Civil Misc. No.08 of 2016
describing the Defendant no.1 as Puspa Rani Goswami and showing her as
Opposite Party No.1, notice was served on the Defendant no.1 in the said
application and she signed the same in Bengali as Puspa Bala Goswami. It
also noted that the Defendant no.1 in the written statement is contesting the
suit stating that she was Puspa Rani Goswami alias Puspa Rani Baishnab. It
held that the sale deed and the written statement reveal the husband’s name of
the Defendant no.1 as Binode Bihari Goswami.
26. It therefore concluded that the Defendant no.1 is also known as
Puspa Bala Goswami. It held that the Defendant no.1 cannot take advantage of
typographical error, rather drafting error committed by the plaintiff. It held
that the description of the Defendant no.1 in the plaint as Puspa Rani
Goswami was a mistake, that it ought to have been written as Puspa Bala

Page 7 of 11 2026:THC:1210
TRHC010009392026

Goswami, that it was a mistake of the Advocate engaged by the plaintiff, and
the Defendant no.1 cannot take advantage of this.
27. It also relied on the deposition of PW-4, the scribe of the sale
deed, who stated that he wrote it as per the version of Smt. Puspa Bala
Goswami, who executed it in favour of the plaintiff and she had signed the
same. He also identified the sale deed and his own signatures thereon. It also
held that there is nothing to show that the sale deed was a fake or forged
document. More importantly, it noted that the Defendant no.1, though she
denied having executed the sale deed, she did not say that it does not bear her
signature. So, it did not accept the plea of the Defendant no.1 that she did not
execute the sale deed.
28. The Lower Appellate Court also held that the pleadings of the
defendants No.2 to 8 supported by the examination of DW-1 show that they
are also co-sharers in the property, but they have not sought relief of
cancellation of the sale deed by making a counter claim, but the said sale deed
is binding only on the Defendant no.1, and not on the defendants No.2 to 8. It
held that the sale deed purporting to transfer half of the entire property would
be valid to the extent of the seller’s share and so, the plaintiff is entitled to
declaration of his title to the extent of only half of the land transferred in his
favour on the strength of the sale deed (Exhibit-3).
29. It also held that the cancellation of the mutation by the Revenue
Authority is not valid in its entirety and that the plaintiff gets title of the land
to the extent of half of the purchased land.
30. The Appellate Court then held that the evidence on record shows
that the plaintiff was in possession of the suit schedule property and that the
second respondent was trying to trespass into the suit schedule property by

Page 8 of 11 2026:THC:1210
TRHC010009392026

claiming title and PW-2 also supported the evidence of PW-1 and, therefore,
the plaintiff was entitled to perpetual injunction.
31. According to the Lower Appellate Court, half of the purchased
land would be according to value and not according to quantum, and since
there was no partition, declaration of title over the half of the purchased land
cannot be granted. The order of cancellation of mutation, which had been
passed, was set aside. It also restrained the Defendant no.1 from perpetually
entering into the suit land.
The Second Appeal:
32. Challenging the same, the Second Appeal is filed.
33. The principal contention of the Defendant no.1 is that the sale
deed (Exhibit-3) in favour of the plaintiff mentioned the name of the executant
as Smt. Puspa Bala Goswami but she was described in the plaint as Puspa
Rani Goswami, and the plaintiff failed to prove her signature on the document.
34. No doubt, in the plaint the Defendant no.1 was described as Smt.
Puspa Rani Goswami, but in the sale deed (Exhibit-3), the name of the
executant is mentioned as Puspa Bala Goswami.
35. But both the sale deed (Exhibit-3) and the written statement
reveal the name of the husband of the Defendant no.1 as Binode Bihari
Goswami.
36. In the written statement, Defendant no.1 no doubt denied
executing the sale deed in favor of plaintiff. But in the said written statement,
she described herself as Puspa Rani Goswami alias Puspa Rani Baishnab and
not as Puspa Bala Goswami. She did not deny specifically that her name is not
Puspa Rani Goswami and that it is actually Puspa Bala Goswami.

Page 9 of 11 2026:THC:1210
TRHC010009392026

37. Also in the temporary injunction application, i.e. Civil Misc.
No.08 of 2016 though the Defendant no.1 was shown as Opposite Party No.1
and described as Puspa Rani Goswami, but she signed in the notice served
therein, as Puspa Bala Goswami.
38. In these circumstances, the lower Appellate Court rightly held
that the Defendant no.1 is also known as Puspa Bala Goswami; that the
Defendant no.1 cannot take advantage of typographical error, rather drafting
error committed by the plaintiff; that the description of the Defendant no.1 in
the plaint as Puspa Rani Goswami was a mistake and it ought to have been as
Puspa Bala Goswami; and it was a mistake of the Advocate engaged by the
plaintiff and the Defendant no.1 cannot take advantage of this.
39. All these circumstances were rightly relied upon by the Lower
Appellate Court to record a finding of fact that the Defendant no.1 was indeed
Puspa Bala Goswami, who executed Exhibit-3 Sale Deed. This evidence was
also corroborated by PW-4, who was the scribe of the deed.
1
40. In Hemalatha v. Tukaram , the Supreme Court held that a
registered sale deed carries with it a formidable presumption of validity and
genuineness; that registration is not a mere procedural formality but a solemn
act that imparts high degree of sanctity to the document and the Court must
not lightly or casually declare a registered instrument as a “sham”. It also held
that the burden of proof to displace this presumption rests heavily upon the
challenger and such a challenge can only be sustained if the party provides
material particulars and cogent evidence to demonstrate that the deed was
never intended to operate as a bona fide transfer of title.

1
(2026) 5 SCC 168

Page 10 of 11 2026:THC:1210
TRHC010009392026

41. This was also reiterated in Shri Mukund Bhavan Trust and
others v. Shrimant Chhatrapati Udayan Raje Pratapsinh Maharaj Bhonsle
2
and another and it was declared that a registered document is presumed to be
validly executed and is valid until it is declared as illegal.
42. The trial court’s view that not even one attesting witness to the
sale deed was not produced by the respondent to prove the execution of the
sale deed (Ex.3) is legally unsustainable because in R.Veronica & Another v.
3
Rudrayani Devaki (D) through LRs S.Satha Kumar & Ors , the Supreme
Court has held that a sale deed is not required by law to be attested and
proviso to Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is not applicable to it.
It held that the proviso to Section 68 carves out an exception only in respect of
documents that are required to be mandatorily attested by law and that a sale
deed does not fall in the category of such documents, therefore, the proviso to
section 68 would not be applicable to a sale deed. It followed it’s earlier
4
judgments in Hans Raji (Smt.) v.Yasodanand and Bayanabai Kaware v.
5
Rajendra . Thus there is no legal requirement to call an attesting witness in
proof of execution of a sale deed
43. The Lower Appellate Court, in my opinion, has correctly
appreciated the evidence on record and come to a conclusion that the
Defendant no.1 did execute the sale deed (Exhibit-3) in favour of the plaintiff.
44. Since the defendants No.2 to 8 were not cross-examined by the
plaintiff, the Lower Appellate Court had rightly granted limited relief only of
declaration of title of half the property to the plaintiff.

2
(2024) 15 SCC 675
3
Civil Appeal No. 6526 of 2024 dt.14.7.2026
4
(1996) 7 SCC 122
5
(2018) 1 SCC 585

Page 11 of 11 2026:THC:1210
TRHC010009392026

45. As regards finding regarding possession of the plaintiff of the suit
schedule properties, the finding of the First Appellate Court does not suffer
any error.
46. Consequently, I do not find any question of law for consideration
in this Second Appeal, and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.




(M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO, CJ)






































Pulak
PULAK BANIK
Digitally signed by PULAK BANIK
Date: 2026.09.02 15:29:30 +05'30'