A.C. Upadhyay, J.

1. I have heard Mr. D.R. Choudhury, learned Counsel for the Appellant, and Mr. P. Roy Barman, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents.

2. This second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree, dated 31.03.2001 and 03.04.2001 respectively, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Court No. 4, West Tripura, Agartala, in Title Appeal No. 05 of 2000, dismissing the appeal preferred by the Plaintiff-Appellant, against the dismissal of decree passed by the learned trial Court.

3. Brief facts, leading to the filing of this second appeal, may be stated, as follows:

The Plaintiff, Appellant herein, filed a suit in the court of learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Agartala, West Tripura, stating therein, that in the year 1965, the Plaintiff-Appellant got allotment of lands as elaborately described in Schedule A and B of the plaint. The land was accordingly mutated in his name in Khatian No. 1545 of Mouja-Ghaniagram. After getting the allotment, the Plaintiff-Appellant constructed dwelling hut in the suit land and also planted banana, bamboo and jackfruit trees, etc.

4. The Defendants-Respondents were shown as permissive possessors, in Schedule B of the suit land. In fact, the Plaintiff-Appellant did not permit the Defendants-Respondents to reside in the suit land, but in collusion with the Settlement Department, the name of the Defendant-Respondent No. 1 and the deceased Sudhir Das, were recorded in Column 24 of Khatian No. 1502.

5. After several village meetings, though the Defendants-Respondents assured that they would leave the suit land, but they did not do so. Consequently, the Plaintiff Appellant filed TS No. 44 of 1998, before the learned Civil Judge, Jr. Division, West Tripura, Agartala, praying for a decree declaring his right, title and interest over the suit land and also for recovery of the suit land, as shown in Schedule A and B of the plaint.

6. The Defendants-Respondents contested the suit by filing written statement, stating therein, that they acquired right, title and interest over the suit land by way of adverse possession for more than the statutory period. The Defendants-Respondents denied the right of the Plaintiff-Appellant over the suit land.

7. The case of the Defendants-Respondents Nos. 2, 3 and 4 as stated in the joint written statement, filed together with Defendant-Respondent No. 1, is that deceased Sudhir Das, i.e. husband of Defendant No. 2, and father and father-in-law of Defendants-Respondents No. 2 and 3, got allotment of the land, shown in the plaint about 40 years before. Since then the deceased Sudhiar Das had been possessing the suit land with the members of his family by constructing dwelling houses thereon. The Defendants-Respondents also stated that they had been possessing the suit land openly and clearly denying and disputing the right, title and interest of the Plaintiff-Appellant.

8. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed the following issues:

I. Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form ?

II. Whether the Plaintiff has any right, title and interest over the suit land by virtue of the order of allotment ?

III. Whether the Defendant No. 2, 3 and 4 have been possessing the 'A' Schedule land denying right, title and interest of the Plaintiff for more than the statutory period of 12 years ?

IV. Whether due to amicable partition of the paternal property between the Plaintiff and Defendant No. 1, schedule 'B' land fell in the share of Defendant No. 1 ?

V. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to get a decree for delivery of khas possession of the suit land ?

VI. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to get any other relief ?

9. The Plaintiff-Appellant produced two witnesses in the trial court to establish his case. On the other hand, the Defendants-Respondents also produced two witnesses to substantiate their stand.

10. Upon hearing the learned Counsel for both the parties and on careful perusal of the evidence on records, the lear