C.R. Sarma, J.

1. This appeal, preferred under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, 'CPC)' is directed against the judgment and order dated, 10-11-99, passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, North Tripura, Dharmanagar in Title Appeal No. 05 of 1998, whereby and where under the learned first appellate court reversed the judgment and decree, dated 23-8-97, and 4-9-97 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division) in T.S. No. 52 of 1996.

2. I have heard Mr. A. K. Bhowmik, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. S. Datta, appearing for the Appellant. Also heard Mr. S.C. Das, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents.

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

The predecessor-in-interest of the Appellant instituted Title Suit No. 52 of 1996 seeking declaration of his right, title, interest and recovery of khas possession and perpetual injunction in respect of the suit land. According to the Plaintiff, he got allotment in respect of a plot of land measuring.074 acre, covered by plot No. 7072/9588(p), vide allotment dated 2-11-63. This land has been fully mentioned in Schedule A to the plaint and in respect of the this land, the Plaintiff obtained a khatian and he continued to possess the same, by developing the land. During the settlement operation, though a considerable portion of the said land was recorded in the khas khatian, the Plaintiff filed an objection case, being 38 of 1966, under Section 43(1) of TLR & LR Act,1960 and on the basis of the said objection, the court of Asst. Survey & Settlement officer, Dharmanagar, vide order dated 8-1-69, correctly recorded the said land in the name of the Plaintiff, vide khatian 3276. The Public Works Department i.e. the Respondents dispossessed the Plaintiff from the suit land, on 20-6-94, by erecting a boundary fencing and accordingly, the Plaintiff, causing service of notice, under Section 80 Code of Civil Procedure, instituted T.S. 63 of 1969 in the court of Munsiff, Dharmanagar for recovery of possession. Subsequently, the Defendants-Respondents had removed the bamboo fencing and the Plaintiff also withdrew the T.S. 63 of 1969 on 3-11-71, following which the Defendants-Respondents handed over possession of the land to the Plaintiff, by removing the fencing, on 15-11-71. When the Plaintiff was possessing the said land, the Executive Engineer, PWD, Northern Division, Dharmanagar i.e. Defendant-Respondent No. 4 filed a Misc. case, under Section 11(3) of TLR & LR Act, 1960 seeking correction of record of rights and the Revenue Authority, by order dated 20-4-79, declared that the record of right maintained in favour of the Plaintiff was correct. However, on 2-12-96, the Defendant-Respondent No. 4 started construction of a semi permanent hut on the south eastern part of the A schedule land. Protesting the said action, on the part of the Defendant-Respondent No. 4, the Plaintiff, on 9-12-96, filed an objection, but the Defendant-Respondent No. 4 continued with the construction of the hut and thus, dispossessed the Plaintiff from the B Schedule land which is a part of the A Schedule land. According to the Plaintiff, the Defendant-Respondent No. 4, his men and agents tried to dispossess the Plaintiff from the remaining part of the A Schedule land i.e. the land described in Schedule D to the plaint. According to the Plaintiff, the cause of action arose on 7-12-96, 9-12-96 and 13-12-96. Hence, the Plaintiff instituted Title Suit No. 5 of 1996 seeking a declaration that he has right, title, interest and possession over the D Schedule land that the Plaintiff is entitled to get vacant position of the B Schedule land. The Plaintiff has also prayed for a perpetual injunction restraining the Defendant-Respondent No. 4 and his men and agents from entering the D Schedule land.

4. The Defendants, by filing a written statement, contested the Plaintiff's claim. Their plea was that the suit land was, all along, in possession of the Defendants since 1953 and t