C.R. Sarma, J.

1. This appeal, under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, (hereinafter referred to as 'Code of Civil Procedure') is directed against the judgment and order, dated 22-5-99, passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, North Tripura, Dharmanagar, in Title Appeal No. 12 of 1996. By the impugned judgment and order, the learned Addl. District Judge reversed the judgment and decree dated 26-8-1996 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Dharmanagar, in favour of the Plaintiff-Respondent, in Title Suit No. 02 of 1993.

2. The Appellant, as Plaintiff, instituted Title Suit No. 02 of 1993 against the Respondent No. 1, seeking a decree for declaration of right, title, possession and perpetual injunction against the Defendant No. 1 in respect of the suit land i.e. the land mentioned in the Schedule II to the plaint. The brothers of the Defendant No. 1 were added as proforma Defendant Nos. 2 and 3, while the vendor of the vendor of the Plaintiff was added as proforma-Defendant No. 4.

3. The Plaintiff-Appellant's case, in brief, may be stated as follows:

The suit land, measuring.65 acre, as mentioned in Schedule II to the plaint, which is a part of a plot of land measuring.75 acre, as mentioned in Schedule I to the plaint, covered by CS khatian No. 119 and RS khatian No. 272, originally belonged to one Rajani Lal Pal alias Rashik Das Vaishnab. As the said owner died unmarried, the proforma-Defendant No. 4, who was the only son of the sole brother of Rasik Das Vaishnab, inherited the said property, as his legal heir, and continued to possess the Schedule I land along with some other land. The Defendant No. 1, being the brother-in-law of the proforma-Defendant No. 4, in 1983, approached the latter to permit him to stay, temporarily, in a part of the said land, on the ground that, following a quarrel with his father, the proforma-Defendant No. 1 was required to live separately from his father. Therefore, on compassionate ground, the proforma-Defendant No. 4 allowed the Defendant No. 1 to stay, temporarily, in a plot of land measuring 5 gandas of land within the Schedule I land. The said land, occupied by the Defendant No. 1, has been described in Schedule III to the plaint. On 29-9-88 the Defendant No. 4, who was possessing the Schedule II land, by executing a registered sale deed, transferred the same and handed over the possession of the said land in favour of Sri Sashi Mohan Nath. Subsequently, on 25-10-88, Sri Sashi Mohan Nath, by a registered sale deed, transferred the suit land in favour of the Plaintiff-Appellant and delivered possession to her and since then, she has been possessing the Schedule II land as its owner and possessor. Subsequently, on 5-4-93, the Defendant No. 1 removed some trees from the suit land and disputed the possession of the Plaintiff. Therefore, the Plaintiff, apprehending dispossession at the hands of the Defendant No. 1, instituted the Title Suit aforesaid seeking declaration of right, title, interest and possession in favour of the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff also prayed for perpetual injunction restraining the Defendant No. 1 from entering into the suit land and removing any trees there from.

4. The proforma-Defendant No. 4, who was the vendor of the vendor of the Plaintiff, by filing a separate written statement, while supporting the claim of the Plaintiff, averred that, during his life time, Rasik Das Vaishnab out of his entire land, sold 10 kanis of land to the father of the Defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and that the remaining land remained with Rasik Das Vaishnab and after the death of Rasik Das, the Defendant No. 4 owned and possessed the same as his only legal heir. He also stated that he sold the suit land and some other land measuring.65 acre to Sri Sashi Mohan Nath, who again sold the same to the Plaintiff. He averred that, after selling 0.65 acres, he kept 0.10 acre of land with him under plot No. 677, and out of this 0.10 acre about 0.05 acre was given to the Defendant No. 1,