Tripura HC dismisses appeal in decades-old partition suit, bars reopening settled land acquisition issue.

News Citation : 2026 LN (HC) 361 | 2026:THC:715

May 25, 2026 : The Tripura High Court has dismissed a second appeal in a decades-old property partition dispute, holding that defendants cannot reopen issues that had already attained finality in earlier proceedings merely to delay execution of a final decree. The ruling reinforces the principle that questions conclusively decided in preliminary decree proceedings cannot be repeatedly raised during final decree proceedings in partition suits.

Chief Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao, while deciding RSA No.18 of 2025, upheld the orders of the trial court and the first appellate court directing demarcation of the disputed property and installation of boundary pillars for effecting partition. The Court observed that the defendants were attempting to revive an issue relating to government land acquisition that had already been settled long ago and could not be reopened at the final decree stage.

The litigation traces its roots to a partition suit filed in 1977 before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Agartala. The plaintiff, Gouranga Chandra Roy, sought partition of the ‘A’ Schedule property claiming an eight annas share and requested a final decree through appointment of a Survey Commissioner. The suit involved multiple parcels of land measuring 1.44 acres, 0.19 acres, and 0.91 acres respectively.

According to the plaintiff, the property originally belonged to Tripura Sundari Kapali and Banamali Roy and was later partitioned among family members. He claimed that his father had gifted him an eight annas share through a registered document executed in 1976. The plaintiff further alleged that during pre-settlement operations, the land was wrongly recorded exclusively in the name of Lal Mohan Roy, predecessor of the defendants, prompting him to initiate proceedings under Section 95 of the Tripura Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act, 1960.

The defendants disputed the plaintiff’s claim and asserted exclusive ownership over the property. They argued that the suit lands were self-acquired properties of their father and denied the existence of any co-sharership or prior partition arrangement.

After trial, the Civil Judge passed a preliminary decree on June 14, 1993 declaring that the plaintiff held a 50 percent share in the suit property and was entitled to partition by metes and bounds. That decree was subsequently affirmed by the appellate court in 1997 and later by the Tripura High Court in RSA No.10 of 2018, thereby attaining finality.

The dispute then shifted to final decree proceedings. A Survey Commissioner initially reported difficulty in locating the entire land because substantial portions had allegedly been sold to third parties by the defendants and fresh khatians had been created in their names. A subsequent survey revealed that out of 127 gandas of decretal land, 78 gandas had already been sold and 8 gandas were under alleged forcible occupation, leaving only 41 gandas available. Since the plaintiff was entitled to half the total property, the Commissioner recommended allotment of the remaining 41 gandas to him.

Although the trial court accepted the report and passed a final decree in 2021, the defendants challenged it before the appellate court, which set aside the decree and ordered a fresh survey. The appellate court held that the earlier survey report lacked proper demarcation and failed to identify which plots had been sold or encroached upon.

Following remand, another survey was conducted in 2024. The defendants objected to the fresh report on the ground that a portion of the land had been acquired by the State Government for construction of a national highway and this aspect had not been properly reflected in the report. However, the trial court rejected the objection and directed the Survey Commissioner to demarcate the plaintiff’s share by installing pillars on the land.

The defendants again challenged the order before the District Judge and also sought amendment of the appeal memo under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The appellate court dismissed both the amendment application and the appeal, holding that the trial court had correctly directed demarcation of the plaintiff’s share. The appellate court relied on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Shub Karan Bubna v. Sita Saran Bubna, which clarified that partition suits remain pending until actual division of the property by metes and bounds and passing of a final decree.

Before the High Court, the principal argument raised by the appellants was that the Survey Commissioner had ignored land acquired by the State Government, resulting in an erroneous report. The plaintiff countered that acquisition proceedings had taken place in 1959 itself and compensation had already been jointly received by both branches of the family. Since the acquired land had never formed part of the suit schedule in 1977, the issue could not be raised again decades later.

Accepting the plaintiff’s contention, the High Court observed that the land acquisition had occurred long before the institution of the suit and had already been acknowledged during preliminary decree proceedings. The Court stated, “If the land acquisition had happened and compensation was paid in 1959, the said acquired land would not be part of suit schedule when it was filed in 1977.” The Court further held that once the finding regarding acquisition attained finality, the defendants could not be permitted to reopen the issue during final decree proceedings “and seek to delay the passing of the final decree in this manner.”

Dismissing the second appeal, the High Court found no substantial question of law warranting interference under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Court also disposed of all pending applications without imposing costs.

The judgment is significant for property and partition litigation because it reiterates that final decree proceedings are meant for implementation of rights already determined through a preliminary decree and not for reopening settled factual disputes. The ruling also underscores judicial concern over prolonged partition litigation, especially where parties attempt to delay execution through repetitive objections and procedural challenges.

Case Reference: Tulsi Roy (Sarkar) & Ors. v. Gouranga Chandra Roy & Ors., RSA No.18 of 2025; For Appellants: Senior Advocate Debalay Bhattacharya with Agniva Chakraborty; For Respondents: Dhruba Jyoti Saha and Samrat Sarkar.