A.C. Upadhyay, J.

1. Heard Mr. KN Bhattacharjee, learned Senior counsel, assisted by Mr. S. Acharjee, appearing for the Appellant as well as Mr. A.K. Bhowmik, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. R. Datta, learned Counsel representing the Respondents.

2. This second appeal is directed against the judgment and appellate decree dated 30.09.1999, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, South Tripura, Udaipur, in Title Appeal No. 12 of 1987, dismissing the appeal preferred by the Defendant Appellant, against the decree passed by the trial court.

3. Facts, leading to the filing of this second appeal, may be narrated, in brief, as follows:

The Plaintiff filed original Title Suit No. 02 of 1971, against the present Defendant and one Smt. Manada Sundari Debi, as Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 respectively, praying for declaration of title, recovery of possession and mesne profit. However, Smt. Manada Sundari Debi, did not contest the suit, and accordingly, she was not made a party in this second appeal.

4. The suit land originally belonged to one Nanibala Ghosh, who had purchased the same from one Ramkrishna Nama in the year 1938. The Plaintiff Late Harihar Dey, had purchased the suit land from Nanibala Ghosh by registered deed of sale, dated 16.06.1970. The Defendant-Appellant claimed that the suit land did not appertain to old Jote No. 74 and claimed that old Jote No. 72 covered it. The Defendant-Appellant further stated in his written statement that he had purchased the land of Jote No. 72, bearing Khatian No. 204 and since then he has possessed the said land.

5. Both sides produced documentary as well as oral evidences. Survey Commissioner was also appointed and it was reported by the Survey Commissioner that all the above plots except plot No. 651/2079 appertains to old Jote No. 72.

6. The following issues were framed in this suit for just decision of the case:

1. Is the suit properly valued and plaint sufficiently stamped?

2. Is the suit barred by limitation?

3. Does the suit land appertaining to old jote No. 74 or to old jote No. 72 as alleged by the Defendants?

4. Has the Plaintiff any right, title and interest over the disputed land?

5. Is the story of possession and dispossession as alleged by the Plaintiff, true?

6. Is the Plaintiff entitled to get mesne profit?

7. Is the Plaintiff entitled to get recovery of possession?

8. What relief, if any, parties are entitled to?

Additional Issues

9. Is the suit bad for non joinder of necessary parties?

10. Is the Plaintiff entitled to get a declaration of right, title and interest over the suit land?

7. Learned Sub Judge(Trial Court) upon consideration of pleadings, oral evidence and documentary evidence including survey commission reports decided the issues holding that all plots of suit land appertain to old jote No. 74 and that plot No. 651/2079, also belonged to old jote No. 74 and not Jote No. 72, as reported by Survey Commissioner. Learned Trial Court in the judgment aforesaid recorded detailed reasons by appreciating the evidence on record, to take a view contrary to the observation made by the Survey Commissioner. The aforesaid findings are based on due appreciation of all documentary and oral evidence adduced by the respective parties to the litigation.

8. The suit was originally decreed in favour of the Plaintiff by a judgment and decree dated 3.10.1975 by the learned Trial Court. The said judgment and decree was set aside by the first appellate court below by a judgment dated 12.12.1978 in TA 24/75. The suit was remanded for retrial after appointing a survey commission. Thereafter, the learned Sub Judge, appointed survey commissioner and sent the report of the survey commissioner along with findings to the learned First Appellate Court. The learned First Appellate Court (ADJ) by order dated 31.7.85 in TA 13/84(TA 24/75), clarified that on the basis of remand order dated 12.12.78 the Learned Trial Court was required to pass a fresh judgment. Accordingly, learned Sub Judge in view of