1    

REPORTABLE  

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA  

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION  

CIVIL APPEAL  NO. 9040 OF 2013  

Aftaruddin (Dead) Rep. Thr. Lrs.                    .…Appellant(s)  

Vs.  

Ramkrishna Datta alias Babul Datta & Ors.   ..Respondent(s)  

J U D G M E N T  

Deepak Gupta, J.  

1. Ramkrishna Datta, Dhirendra Chandra Ghosh and  

Lalit Mohan Ghosh, filed a suit in the trial court for  

declaration of their title on the suit land with consequential  

relief of permanent injunction for restraining Aftarduddin  

(contesting defendant & appellant before this Court), who  

has since expired and is represented by legal heirs, from  

interfering in the suit land.

2    

2. From the facts as pleaded and proved before the trial  

court it is apparent that one Sayed Jama Kazi was the raiyat  

(owner) of the suit land.  Aftaruddin was under-raiyat (Kurfa  

rights similar to tenancy rights).  This fact is apparent from  

the Revenue Record as reported in the Civil Survey of  

Settlement for the year 1965-66 and in the Revenue  

Khatiyan No.302 published on 15.03.96.  On 11.01.71,  

Aftaruddin is alleged to have executed a sale deed  

transferring the entire suit land in favour of Mamataj  

Begam, daughter of the raiyat Sayed Jama Kazi.  Thereafter,  

Mamataj Begam and Sayed Jama Kazi transferred the suit  

land to plaintiffs 1 and 2 by registered sale deed on  

27.11.71.   On 06.04.81 plaintiff no.2 sold and transferred a  

portion of his land to plaintiff no.3.  In the Revenue Record  

the defendant Aftaruddin was shown to be in possession of  

the suit land.  Therefore, the plaintiffs filed a suit for  

declaration of their title and prayed for injunction that  

defendant no.1 be restrained from interfering in the           

suit land.   

3    

3. The suit was contested by Aftaruddin and two  

contentions were raised: (i) that the sale deed was never  

executed by him and (ii) that being an under-raiyat he could  

not transfer his rights to any person in view of the bar  

created by Section 108 of the Tripura Land Revenue and  

Land Reforms Act, 1960 (for short the ‘TLR&LR Act’).  The  

original sale deed was not produced on the ground that the  

same was destroyed in fire but a certified copy of the same  

was produced.  The trial court held that though the sale  

deed had been executed, Aftaruddin could not have  

transferred his rights in the suit land and, therefore,  

dismissed the suit.  The First Appeal filed was also  

dismissed.  In the Second Appeal this concurrent finding of  

fact was set aside on the ground that it was a perverse  

finding.  It was held by the High Court that in the sale deed  

Aftaruddin has represented himself to be a raiyat and not an  

under-raiyat and, therefore, Section 108 of TLR&LR Act had  

no application.  The High Court also found that in terms of  

Section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act the subsequent  

vendee could not be denied  their rights.   

4    

4. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant.  A  

“raiyat” has been defined in Section 2(s) of the TLR&LR Act  

to mean a person who owns land for purposes of   

agriculture, paying land revenue to the Government; and   

“under-raiyat” under Section 2(v) means a person who  

cultivates or holds the land of raiyat under an agreement,  

express or implied, on condition of paying  therefor rent in  

cash or in kind or delivering a share of the produce and  

includes a bargadar, i.e. a person who cultivates the land of  

any person on a condition of delivering a share of the  

produce to the land owner or raiyat.  

5. Section 108 of TLR&LR Act reads as follows :-  

“108. (1) The interest of under-raiyat in any land  

held by him as such shall be heritable but, save as  

otherwise provided in this Act, shall not be  

transferable.  

      (2) No under-raiyat shall be evicted from  

his land except as provided in this Act.”  

A bare reading of the aforesaid provision makes it absolutely  

clear that an under-raiyat is prohibited from transferring his

5    

interest as under-raiyat in any land though this interest is a  

heritable interest.  Sub-section (2) provides that no under-

raiyat can be evicted except in accordance with the  

provisions of the TLR&LR Act.  The TLR&LR Act was enacted  

as an agrarian reform legislation and the purpose of Section  

108 is to prevent the under-raiyats or tenants from being  

evicted or being forcefully or dishonestly compelled to  

transfer their rights as under-raiyats.    

6. The learned Single Judge laid great emphasis on the  

fact that in the sale deed Aftaruddin is described to be a  

raiyat.  This cannot in any manner validate the sale deed  

which is otherwise totally against law.  Obviously, a Sub-

Registrar could not have registered a sale deed where the  

seller has described himself as an under-raiyat.  We may  

also add that the vendee Mamataj Begam was none other  

than the daughter of Sayed Jama Kazi, the raiyat.  A few  

months after Aftaruddin executing the sale deed on  

11.01.71,  Mamataj Begam and her father Sayed Jama Kazi  

sold the entire land in favour of the plaintiffs/respondents

6    

on 27.11.71.  It is obvious that the sale deed dated 11.01.71  

was got executed showing Aftaruddin as a raiyat to get over  

the bar of Section 108.  This is what Section 108 prohibits.   

The plaintiffs who were subsequent purchasers cannot take  

benefit of the subterfuge and fraud committed by Sayed  

Jama Kazi and Mohd. Aftaruddin.  Their remedy, if any, lay  

in taking action against Sayed Jama Kazi and Mamataj  

Begam, who were not even impleaded as parties in the suit.   

The High Court totally mis-interpreted the provisions of  

Section 108.    

7. In 1987 Aftaruddin was conferred the rights of the  

raiyat.  It was contended on behalf of the plaintiffs that in  

view of Section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act since  

Aftaruddin is now entitled to transfer his rights a sale deed  

in their favour becomes valid.  This is not at all correct.  No  

sale deed was executed by Aftaruddin in favour of the  

plaintiffs.  The fraud was not committed by Aftaruddin but  

by Sayed Jama Kazi and Mamataj Begam.  The protection  

under Section 108 of the TLR&LR Act which is a statutory

7    

protection could not have been taken away by the subterfuge  

committed by the then raiyat.  

8. We are clearly of the view that the High Court exceeded  

its jurisdiction in setting aside the concurrent finding of fact  

without any question of law much less a substantial  

question of law arising in the second appeal.  Accordingly  

the judgment of the High Court is set aside and the  

judgment of the trial court is restored.  The appeal is,  

accordingly, allowed.  

……………………………..J.  (Madan B. Lokur)  

……………………………..J.  (Deepak Gupta)  

New Delhi  December 08, 2017