T. Amarnath Goud, J. - (1.)This is an appeal under Sec. 100 read with Order XXII Rule 1 read with order XLI Rule 1 of the CPC against the judgment dtd. 9/2/2018 and Decree passed on 20/2/2018 in Title Appeal No.18 of 2012 by the Learned District Judge, North Tripura, Dharmanagar upholding the Judgment dtd. 28/6/2012 and Decree the dtd. 2/7/2012 passed in Title Suit No.24 of 2006 passed by the Civil Judge, Jr. Division, Dharmanagar, North Tripura dismissing the suit of the appellant.
(2.)For the sake of brevity the parties are referred to as in the title suit. The brief fact of the plaintiff's case is that the plaintiff is the owner and possessor of the landed property measuring about 12 sataks under Khatian No.113 pertaining to present C/S plot No.400 under Mouja and T.K-Ramnagar, Dharmanagar as described in the schedule of the plaint as the plaintiff purchased the aforesaid landed property from one Chaturi Singh through registered sale deed No.1-1848 dated 12/7/5 and since then he has been possessing the said land. It is also mentioned in the plaint that the said landed property was in the possession of Bipin Chandra Das being the permissive possessor under the said Chaturi Singh and one Ruhini Singh against monthly tenant of Rs.50.00 for starting a business. It is also pertinent to mention that Chaturi Singh (pro-defendant No.1) of the suit is the owner and possessor of the property measuring about 0.62 acre under khatian No.113 Hal khatian No.105 along with her co-owner Ruhini Singh and the said Ruhini Singh died long back leaving his only son namely Chitta Singh (pro-defendant No.2). Thereafter pro-defendant No.2 left the place since long and the suit land along with other portion of the land came under the absolute ownership of Chaturi Singh and as per the mutual settlement between Chaturi Singh, Ruhini Singh and Chitta Singh, Chaturi Singh became the owner and possessor of the landed property and being the owner he sold out the suit land to the plaintiff. The defendant No.1 on 15/4/1997 took lease of the hut against Rs.100.00 from said Chaturi Singh and has been staying there with a condition that he would vacate the said land measuring 12 sataks as and when asked. The plaintiff purchased the land measuring 12 sataks from Chaturi Singh through the registered deed and within the knowledge of the defendant and became the owner and possessor of the landed property against valuable consideration and thereafter the plaintiff applied for mutation but due to non-availability of ROR which has been send to Agartala for computerization, the petition for mutation is pending for disposal. On 1/8/5 the plaintiff requested the defendants to vacant the premises under the possession but the defendant refused to vacant the same and told the plaintiff that he may move before the Court if he so desires. The defendant also told to the plaintiff that he will not pay anything against this possession as earlier because he does not take the plaintiff as owner so the plaintiff finding no other alternative means filed the present case with a prayer for granting decree for declaration that the plaintiff have right, title and interest over the suit land described in the schedule of the plaint for recovery of khas possession of the suit land by evicting the defendants from the suit land by removing all the obstacles created by the defendant if any and also along with the costs of the suit.
(3.)On the other hand, the defendants contested the suit by filing a written statement denying all the allegations of the plaintiff in the plaint and also stating inter alia that the proforma defendant No.5 was the owner and possessor of the land measuring 0.20 acre appertaining to R.S Plot no.399 corresponding to CS Plot No.415 under khatian no.127 of Mouja and Tehsil –Ramnagar, Revenue Circle and Sub-Division- Dharmanagar. The proforma defendant No.5 sold out the land measuring 0.02 acre of principal defendant No.1 and 2 through registered sale deed bearing No.1-2429 dtd. 20/5/1985 and after that the principal defendant no.1 and 2 started living jointly by constructing the home stead thereon. The suit land measuring 0.12 acre described in the schedule of the plaint is situated adjacent south of the aforesaid .20 acre purchased land of the principal defendant and the predecessors of proforma defendant No. 3 and 4 were the owners of the said land measuring 0.12 acre as per the schedule of the plaint. The proforma defendant No.3 is married and living at Patharkandi, Assam and the proforma defendant No.4 is also residing at Kailashahar since his birth. So, the proforma defendant No. 3 and 4 never possessed the suit land and the suit land was lying vacant. The principal defendant No. 1 on 1/1/1992 finding the suit land interest of the owner i.e. proforma defendant No.3 and 4 and the principal defendant No 1 and 2 has been possessing the suit land adversely continuously from 1/1/1992 till date peacefully. The principal defendant No. 1 by construction bamboo fending over the boundary of the suit land and by including the suit land within the boundaries of his purchased land has been possessing the same by producing valuable tress and after few days of the taking of possession they constructed homestead by digging pond and also a hut measuring 10 cubits x 6 with bamboo structure and tin roofing for the purpose of staying there with his family. Prior to the adverse possession of the suit land by the principal defendant No. 1 the suit land was lying vacant and the name of Sri Bipin Chandra Das (proforma defendant No.5) has been wrongly entered in the 24th column as permissive possessor in respect of the suit land under khatian No. 113 but the said Bipin Chandra Das never possessed the suit land being the permissive possessor but one Ranjit Ranjan Paul in the year 1978 constructed a hut for the purpose of manufacturing tiles in the suit land and he stopped the business in the year 1981 and the said hut was demolished and the suit land was lying vacant. The principal defendant No.1 has been possessing the suit land from 1/1/1992 adversely denying the right, title, and interest proforma defendant No.3 and 4 within the knowledge of the owners and the world at large and the plaintiff without taking possession of the suit land purchased the suit land through registered Kobala bearing No.1-1848 dated 12/7/5 and hence till date the ROR in respect of the suit land has not been issued in the name of the plaintiff. The principal defendant No.1 has been possession the suit land adversely beyond the period of prescription and as such right to file the suit against the principal defendant No.1 has been extinguished and hence the suit instituted by the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed. The defendant also answered in their written statement that the right, title and interest of the proforma defendant No.3 and 4 over the suit land has been extinguished and as such they are not entitled to sell the sit land to anybody else and so the registered sale deed No.1-1848 dated 12/7/5 executed by pro-defendant No. 3 is fraudulent and liable to be dismissed.
;