Summary
Purchasers claimed title through a purported transfer by a protected under-raiyat who was described in the deed as a raiyat. The Court held that this description could not evade the statutory transfer prohibition. His later acquisition of raiyat rights did not validate the purchasers’ claim, and dismissal of their suit was restored.
Issues
- Whether describing an under-raiyat as a raiyat could validate a transfer prohibited by section108.
- Whether later acquisition of raiyat rights or second-appeal review supported the purchasers’ claim.
Provisions considered
- Section108, Tripura Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act, 1960The under-raiyat interest is heritable but, save as otherwise provided by the Act, nontransferable; eviction must comply with the Act. The statutory protection could not be defeated by the deed’s false description. (¶ 5–7)
Held
- The agrarian protection prevents forced or dishonest deprivation of under-raiyat rights. Describing the protected tenant as a raiyat in a sale deed cannot validate what the statute prohibits; subsequent purchasers cannot benefit from the original raiyat’s and his daughter’s subterfuge. (¶ 5–6)
- The tenant’s subsequent acquisition of raiyat rights did not sustain reliance on section43 of the Transfer of Property Act: he had executed no sale deed in favour of these plaintiffs, and their vendors’ fraud could not remove his statutory protection. Any remedy lay against those vendors. (¶ 6–7)
- The High Court exceeded second-appeal jurisdiction by disturbing concurrent factual findings without any substantial question of law arising. (¶ 8)
Result
Appeal allowed; High Court judgment set aside and trial court judgment dismissing the title-and-injunction suit restored.