'Findings perverse, material evidence ignored,' Tripura HC sets aside lower court orders on land dispute  

The Tripura High Court has set aside concurrent judgments of two lower courts in a land dispute case and observed that the findings were “perverse” and based on misreading and ignoring material evidence.

“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,” the court ruled. 

Allowing a second appeal, the High Court single bench headed by Chief Justice M S Ramachandra Rao decreed the suit filed by members of the Debbarma family from Dhalai district seeking declaration of title and recovery of possession over disputed land at Machkumbhi under Gandacherra subdivision.

The appellants had challenged a 2024 judgment of the District Judge, Dhalai, which upheld a 2022 order of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ambassa, dismissing their title suit.

According to the case records, the plaintiffs claimed ownership over 2.09 acres of land allotted in 1997 to late Laipada Debbarma and his wife through an official allotment order issued under the Tripura Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act.

They alleged that portions of the land were temporarily allowed to be occupied by two defendants on humanitarian grounds but were not vacated later, prompting them to file the suit.

The defendants contested the claim, asserting that the disputed portions formed part of a separate allotment made to another individual, Surendra Reang, and also raised questions over discrepancies in land records and survey maps.

In the judgment delivered on Thursday, the High Court held that both the trial court and the first appellate court failed to properly appreciate crucial documentary evidence produced by the plaintiffs, including the allotment order and khatians.

“A statutory allotment order cannot be ignored,” the Chief Justice observed and noted that the document remained valid and had never been set aside by any competent authority.

The court also faulted the defendants for failing to produce the allotment order on which they based their own claim.

“Non-production of the same should have prompted the courts below to draw an adverse inference against the defendants,” the judgment said.

The High Court further observed that the lower courts ignored statutory presumptions attached to land records under the Tripura Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act and relied improperly on an administrative communication questioning past survey procedures.

The judgment also criticised the first appellate court for substantially reproducing the reasoning of the trial court without independently reappreciating the evidence.

“A First Appellate Court is expected to independently come to a conclusion. It is not expected to simply copy the trial court’s judgment,” the court said.

Holding that the findings of the two courts suffered from “manifest misreading of evidence”, the High Court allowed the appeal and decreed the plaintiffs’ suit.

The court also directed that a copy of the judgment be placed in the service record of the trial court judge, observing that the issues in the suit had been dealt with in a “superficial and perverse way”.