Arindam Lodh,J. - (1.)Heard Mr. B. Saha and Mr. S. Bhattacharjee, learned counsels appearing for the plaintiff-appellant, Mr. K. K. Pal, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 and Mr. T.K.Deb, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3.
(2.)Sans unnecessary details, the facts which are relevant to decide upon the case may be narrated here-in-below:
The plaintiff-appellant has instituted a suit for declaration of right, title, interest and recovery of possession of the 'B' Schedule land which is part of 'B' Schedule land mentioned in the plaint. It is stated in the plaint that the plaintiff-appellant is the owner of land measuring 6(six) gandas. It is his further case that at one point of time 3 (three) karas of land was occupied by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 i.e. the Agartala Municipal Council. However, on repeated persuasion, the Agartala Municipal Council had handed over some portion of land and though it was not specifically mentioned in the plaint about the quantum of land handed over to the plaintiff, at the stage of second appeal, Mr. Saha, learned counsel has invited my attention that a portion of the land measuring 199 Sq.ft. was handed over, but, the remaining land measuring 449 Sq.ft. has still been lying under the occupation of the Agartala Municipal Council which is the Schedule 'B' land. Both the Courts below have declared title of the plaintiff-appellant over the 'A' Schedule land but rejected the prayer of the plaintiff-appellant to decree the suit in regard to recovery of possession of the land described in Schedule 'B' which is the suit land of the suit. Both the Courts below have assigned the reason that the boundary of 'B' Schedule land does not tally with the boundary of 'A' Schedule land and it is not possible to find out what actually the 'B' Schedule land is.

(3.)While admitting the appeal, this Court has framed the following substantial question of law:
"Whether the finding of the trial Court that the plaintiff failed to prove his dispossession from the suit land for which the plaintiff sought for recovery of possession was justified while the trial Court arrived at a finding that the plaintiff has proved his title over the suit land in view of the evidence and material on record which has been affirmed by the appellate Court?"

;