JUDGMENT :

KRISHNA RAO, J.

1. This second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court dated 30th November, 2018 passed in Title Appeal No. 17 of 2018 (Smt Sukhoda Roy vs. Smt Anwesha Sarkar and Another) wherein the First Appellate Court had affirmed the judgment and decree of dismissal of suit passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), South Andaman District at Port Blair in Title Suit No. 27 of 2006 dated 21st October, 2011.

2. The plaintiff instituted the Title Suit No. 27 of 2006 praying for a declaration that late Nityananda Roy, deceased husband of the plaintiff, never agreed to sell away any portion of the land bearing survey No. 20/4 at Rampur, Rangat, and never received any money from the defendant no. 1 and a further declaration that both the defendants are rank encroachers on survey no. 20/4 at Rampur, to the extent of 750 sq.mtrs and two huts standing therein The appellant had further prayed for a decree directing the ejection of both defendants from the total suit property and restoration of its actual/khas, peaceful and vacant possession to the plaintiff and allied prayers.

3. The plaintiff/appellant is a widow of Late Nityananda Roy resident of village Rampur under Rangat Tehsil. Her husband died on 11th June, 1991.

4. The original defendant no. 1 Smt Sandhya Roy is the close relative of the plaintiff/appellant as she being the younger sister of the husband of the plaintiff and daughter of Late Jagbandhu Roy. The original defendant no. 1 had married one Ranjit Majhi but he died sometime in the year 1986 and thereafter the original defendant no. 1 had married second time to one Asish Sarkar sometime in the year 1987.

5. The husband of the plaintiff late Nityananda Roy was the lawful owner of a good number plots of various nature situated at Rampur village under Rangat Tehsil and after the death of Nityananda Roy, the plaintiff/appellant herein became the sole owner of the properties left behind her husband. Out of such plots, survey no. 20/4 measuring an area of 1900 sq.mtrs (0.19 hectares) situated at Rampur village classified as House Site was also recorded in the name of Nityananda Roy.

6. After the death of the husband of the original defendant no. 1, the plaintiff had permitted her to occupy the small portion of land in survey no. 20/4 along with two temporary huts constructed by the father of the plaintiff. The land measuring an area of 150 sq.mtrs in survey no. 20/4 was temporarily given to the original defendant for a limited period of five years with the understanding that the original defendant will deliver back the actual, peaceful and vacant possession of the said portion of land along with two huts to the plaintiff on expiry of five years.

7. The original defendant no. 1 along with her second husband started residing in the suit property. After completion of stipulated period of five years, in the month of March, 1995, the plaintiff/appellant had approached the defendant no. 1 and requested to vacate the suit property but the original defendant no. 1 flatly refused to vacate the said suit property and claiming that the deceased husband of the plaintiff had agreed to sell an area of 1000 sq.mtrs in survey no. 20/4 for a valuable consideration and accordingly, the defendant no .1 failed to vacate the premises.

8. The plaintiff/appellant had lodged a complaint against the defendant no. 1 in the month of October, 2005 to the Tehsildar, Rangat Tehsil and prayed for eviction of the defendant no. 1 from the suit property and to restore the said portion of land in favour of the plaintiff. The Tehsildar had initiated the proceeding but subsequently the said proceeding was dismissed on the ground that the Tehsildar is not having the jurisdiction as the encroachment being more than two years old and advised the plaintiff to seek appropriate remedy before the Civil Court.

9. The original defendant no. 1 had sent a legal notice to the plaintiff making certain false and mischievo