ARINDAM LODH,J. - (1.)The instant second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the learned District Judge, North Tripura District on 23.10.2017 in connection with Title Appeal No.04 of 2017 modifying (reversing) the judgment and decree dated 23.11.2016 and 03.12.2016 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kanchanpur, North Tripura District, in connection with Title Suit No.04 of 2015.
(2.)Heard Mr. R. Nandi, learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as Mr. K.N. Bhattacharjee, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. P. Saha, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
(3.)The facts in brief are as under:
The plaintiff-appellant has instituted a suit to pass a decree for possession of the suit land and to pass an order of eviction of the defendant-respondents from the suit land. It is stated in the plaint that the plaintiff and the defendants are the permanent residents of the same locality and the defendants are poor farmers who used to occupy and cultivate the schedule plot of land much prior to the allotment given in favour of the plaintiff. During settlement operation conducted by the competent authority of the State, the plaintiff Bini Chakma was allotted the schedule suit land in his name observing all the provisions for allotment of land under TLR and LR Act, 1960 and the said allotment remains unchallenged till today.

The plaintiff has further stated that he has been using the suit land for agricultural purpose without any disturbance. But, from the year 2008, both the defendants No.1 and 2 were collectively engaged for cultivation on the suit land and they were allowed to construct a temporary hut for the conveyance of their activities in the premises. The plaintiff never intended to gift/donate/sell/convey the suit land in favour of the defendants at any point of time in the past. Due to the misbehaviour and lack of sincerity on the part of the defendants, the plaintiff was compelled to ask the defendants for vacating the land, which was in fact led the relation to shore. The plaintiff also tried to resolve the matter by way of amicable settlement but to no avail, compelling him to institute the present suit for eviction of the defendants and for possession of the suit land.

The plaintiff has further stated that "depriving the plaintiff from exercising his right and control as the owner of the land is not only violation of law but also morally unacceptable. It is important to observe a social order where the rights of every individual are respected. The plaintiff had no other option but to seek remedy in the court of law for restoration of his rights on the suit land. "

;