Kiran Raj

On February 11, 2025, the High Court of Tripura, comprising Justice T. Amarnath Goud and Justice Biswajit Palit, remanded a partition dispute for fresh adjudication. The court identified deficiencies in the lower court's examination of ownership records and co-ownership rights. The decision was issued in response to an appeal filed by Sri Dilip Sarkar and another against the dismissal of their suit concerning joint property inheritance.

The appellants, Sri Dilip Sarkar and Sri Pranab Sarkar, filed an appeal against the judgment and decree dated October 7, 2023, passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court No.2, West Tripura, Agartala, in TS(P) 92/2020. The appellants contended that their grandfather, Late Ramani Mohan Sarkar, bequeathed land to them and the predecessor of the principal defendants, Late Pradip Sarkar, through a registered will dated June 17, 1996.

Previously, a partition suit, TS(P) 118 of 2004, was settled via a compromise decree on July 17, 2006, allocating different portions of land to various legal heirs. However, the appellants claimed that certain portions of the inherited property were not included in that suit. After the demise of Pradip Sarkar in 2018, they sought an amicable partition with his legal heirs, which was denied, leading to the filing of TS(P) 92/2020.

The trial court dismissed the suit on October 7, 2023, without granting any relief to the plaintiffs, prompting the present appeal. The appellants argued that the trial court failed to appreciate the legal and factual intricacies of the case, rendering the dismissal erroneous.

The High Court observed that “the present matter involves a dispute regarding joint property, wherein the parties are asserting their respective shares and ownership rights.” The court found that the lower court had not conducted a thorough examination of the title documents, revenue records, and previous partition history necessary to ascertain the rightful ownership and distribution of shares. Additionally, the rights of all co-owners had not been adequately evaluated, leading to an incomplete adjudication.

The appellants contended that the trial court had failed to consider whether a subsequent partition suit involving different parties could be barred by a prior compromise decree. They asserted that the learned trial court erroneously examined legal principles unrelated to the specific facts of the case, resulting in an unjust dismissal.

The High Court noted that, in cases concerning joint property, a detailed factual and legal examination is necessary to determine each co-owner’s entitlement. The court stated that a proper assessment of the parties' claims and ownership rights was essential before deciding the matter.

Given the deficiencies in the lower court’s examination of the case, the High Court set aside the dismissal of the suit and remanded the case for fresh adjudication. The trial court has been directed to:

1. Conduct a detailed review of the ownership records and partition history.
2. Assess the respective shares of all claimants.
3. Provide all parties a fair opportunity to present their claims.
4. Complete the adjudication within six months from the date of the judgment.

Additionally, the High Court granted the plaintiffs the liberty to amend their petition, restricting their claim to the land they are legitimately entitled to under the will of Late Ramani Mohan Sarkar.

The matter now stands remanded to the trial court for further proceedings, with a timeline of six months for adjudication.

Case Title: Sri Dilip Sarkar and Another v. Smt. Sipra Sarkar and Others
Case Number: RFA 1 of 2024
Bench: Justice T. Amarnath Goud, Justice Biswajit Palit

[Read/Download order]