Adverse Inference and Statutory Presumptions Render Concurrent Findings Based on Misread Evidence Perverse and Liable to Reversal

The appellants (plaintiffs), heirs of Late Laipada Debbarma, claimed title over 2.09 acres of 'A' schedule land based on an allotment order dated 04.11.1997

They alleged that in 2016, they permitted Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 (defendants) to temporarily occupy 'B' and 'C' schedule portions of the land for 1.5 years

When the respondents refused to vacate, the appellants filed a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession

The respondents claimed the land was part of an allotment granted to Proforma Respondent No. 3 (Surendra Reang) and cited a 2018 SDM report (Exhibit C) suggesting mismatches in revenue maps due to faulty surveys in 2001-02

Both the Trial Court and First Appellate Court dismissed the suit, prompting this Second Appeal

1. Whether the judgments of the Trial Court and the lower Appellate Court were perverse or based on a manifest misreading of evidence?

2. Whether the courts ignored material evidence, specifically the statutory allotment order and the presumption of correctness of revenue records under the Tripura Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act?

The Court applied Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), which allows High Court interference in second appeals when concurrent findings are based on misreading of records or ignoring material evidence

Section 43(3) of the Tripura Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act, 1960 establishes a legal presumption of correctness for entries in the Khatian (record of rights) until proven otherwise

Section 114(g) of the Evidence Act, 1882, regarding adverse inference for non-production of evidence

Principles from Yadarao Dajiba Shrawane v. Nanilal Harakchand Shah and Nazir Mohamed v. J. Kamala concerning the High Court's jurisdiction to set aside perverse findings.

The Court found the lower courts' reasoning "utterly perverse" for holding that plaintiffs produced no deed of title despite the presence of Exhibit 1 (the statutory allotment order)

The High Court noted that the defendants failed to produce their own alleged allotment order, which should have triggered an adverse inference against them

The analysis highlighted that the lower courts erroneously relied on Exhibit C (a 2018 SDM letter) to doubt the plaintiffs' title; the High Court clarified that this letter was a mere administrative opinion reflecting survey difficulties and did not legally invalidate the plaintiffs' prior statutory allotment or Khatian entries

Respondents (DW2 and DW3) admitted in cross-examination they were occupying the suit land but could not identify the Dag or Khatian numbers of the land they claimed, further undermining their case

The High Court also criticized the First Appellate Court for failing to independently re-appreciate evidence, noting it had "practically copied" the Trial Court's judgment

The High Court set aside the judgments of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court, allowing the Second Appeal and decreeing the suit in favor of the appellants for declaration of title and recovery of possession. The Court also directed that a copy of the judgment be placed in the service record of the Trial Court Judge due to the "superficial and perverse" manner in which the suit was handled.