A.C. Upadhyay, J.

1. This Second appeal is directed against the Judgment & decree dated 28.10.2009, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, North Tripura, Kamalpur, in Title Appeal No. 04 of 2009, whereby the appeal preferred by the Defendant-Appellants, against the Judgment & Decree dated 25.07.2008 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Jr. Division, Kamalpur, Dhalai in Title Suit No. 02 of 2007 was dismissed.

2. I have heard Mr. D.R. Choudhury, learned Counsel for the Defendant-Appellants and Mr. P. Rathor, learned Counsel for the Plaintiff-Respondent.

3. The facts leading to filing of this second appeal may be stated in brief as follows:

The Plaintiff-Respondent got allotment of the suit land measuring 2.43 acres being Lunga, Bastu class of land under C.S. Plot No. 106/453, 106/602 and 106/458, covered under Khatian No. 227 under Dhalai District. After the allotment, the Khatian was made in the name of Plaintiff-Respondent. Consequently, the Plaintiff-Respondent started possessing the said land by growing paddy and other crops in the allotted land. On 25.04.2003, the Defendant-Appellants dispossessed the Plaintiff-Respondent forcibly and illegally from the suit land. Consequently, Plaintiff-Respondent filed the suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession of the suit land.

4. The Defendant-Appellants entered appearance and jointly submitted written statement denying the right, title and interest of the Plaintiff-Respondent over the suit land and also denied that the Plaintiff-Respondent had ever come into possession of the suit land. The Defendant-Appellants also contended that since 18.09.1973, they have been all along in possession of the suit land along with other adjacent land, by right of purchase from one Gaya Charan Debbarma, by an unregistered sale deed. The Defendant-Appellants also claimed that the suit land having been in their possession for more than 12 years, without any interruption from the Plaintiff-Respondent and others, and within the knowledge of the Plaintiff-Respondent, the possession of the suit land of the Defendant-Appellants became adverse in the eye of law. Thus, Defendant Appellants claimed that the allotment orders made in favour of the Plaintiff-Respondent in respect of the suit land was illegal, void and beyond the provisions of Section 14 and 15 of the TLR and LR Act, as well as Rule 5 of the TLR and LR Rules, 1962.

5. The learned Trial Court framed following issues for just decision of the case:

(i) Whether there is any cause of action?

(ii) Whether the Plaintiff entitled to a declaration of right title and interest over the suit land?

(iii) Whether the Defendants are liable to be evicted from the suit land?

(iv) Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to get possession of the suit land?

(v) To what relief(s) the Plaintiff is entitled?

6. After careful discussion of the issues in question, the learned Court decreed the suit in favour of the Plaintiff-Respondent. In the appeal, learned Additional District Judge, North Tripura, Kamalpur, discussed and held that even if the Appellants, who claimed to be in possession, for more than 33 years; that too would not create any adverse title in favour of the Appellant, since the Appellants were never aware of the true owner of the land in question. Therefore, the question of denial of title of the true owner never arose and accordingly, the Appellants could not have acquired any title by virtue of adverse possession. The learned appellate Court also held that being the rightful owner of the suit land, the Plaintiff-Respondent was entitled to get back possession of the land measuring 0.95 acre from which, he was dispossessed forcibly by the Defendants-Appellants. The appellate Court did not disturb the finding of the learned trial Court and accordingly, dismissed the appeal.

7. Learned Counsel for the Appellants vehemently submitted that the allotment in respect of the suit land and the creation of khatian in favour of the Plaintiff-Respondent a