“Utterly Perverse”: Tripura High Court Flags Trial Judge's 'Superficial' Handling Of Land Dispute Suit, Orders Entry In Service Record

The Tripura High Court recently directed that a copy of its judgment be placed in the service record of a trial court judge after finding that the land dispute suit had been handled in a “very superficial and perverse way.”

Allowing a second appeal the court held that both the trial court and the first appellate court had ignored material evidence, misread documentary records, and returned findings that no reasonable court could have arrived at.

Chief Justice Mr. M.S. Ramachandra Rao remarked that: “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.” 

Background:

The appellants had filed a suit seeking declaration of right, title, and interest over the land measuring 2.09 acres, along with recovery of possession of portions occupied by the defendants. According to the plaintiffs, the land had originally been allotted to Late Laipada Debbarma and appellant No.1 through an allotment order dated November 4, 1997, and was subsequently recorded in the relevant revenue records and khatians. 

The plaintiffs contended that, out of goodwill, they had permitted the defendants to temporarily occupy portions of the land in 2016 for residential purposes on the assurance that the land would be vacated after one and a half years. However, the defendants allegedly refused to vacate the land thereafter, leading to the institution of the suit. 

The defendants disputed the plaintiffs' title and claimed that the disputed land actually formed part of a separate allotment granted to the proforma defendant and his wife under a different sanction order issued in 1997. They also relied upon a communication from the Sub-Divisional Magistrate suggesting discrepancies in the revisional survey records and maps prepared during the 2001–02 survey operations. 

Both the trial court and the first appellate court dismissed the plaintiffs' suit. Aggrieved by the concurrent findings, the plaintiffs approached the High Court in second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 

The High Court held that both the trial court and the first appellate court committed a serious error by disregarding the plaintiffs' allotment order, which constituted the very source of their title over the suit land.

The Court observed that although the defendants relied upon a separate allotment order to dispute the plaintiffs' title, they failed to exhibit or prove the document during trial. According to the Court, the lower courts ought to have drawn an adverse inference against them under Section 114(g) of the Evidence Act.

The High Court strongly criticised the subordinate courts for concluding that the plaintiffs had failed to produce any title deed despite the allotment order having been marked as an exhibit during trial.

The Court held that the khatians produced by the plaintiffs carried a statutory presumption of correctness under the Tripura Land Reforms and Land Revenue Act, 1960, which the courts below failed to appreciate.

The Court found that the subordinate courts had misread the SDM's communication regarding survey discrepancies and wrongly used it to doubt the plaintiffs' title documents.

The High Court criticised the first appellate court for mechanically reproducing the reasoning of the trial court instead of independently assessing the evidence. Allowing the second appeal, the Court concluded that both subordinate courts had ignored material evidence and misread documentary records.

Case Name: Ramani Debbarma V/s Shri Jira Kumar Reang

Case No.: RSA No. 08 of 2025

Date of Decision: 14.05.2026 

Click Here To Read/Download Order