1. In this second appeal, the appellants have put into challenge the concurrent findings of the learned Sadar Munsiff, Agartala, West Tripura in Title Suit No. 107 of 1989 dismissing the suit of the appellants and affirmed by the learned District Judge, West Tripura, Agartala in Title Appeal No. 3 of 1996.

2. The short facts leading to the present appeal are that the appellants, who are three brothers, along with their mother Sonabashi Debnath (now deceased) filed Title Suit No. 107 of 1989 in the court of learned Sadar Munsiff, Agartala, West Tripura against the respondent herein and seven others praying for a decree declaring right, title and interest of the appellants, confirmation of their possession and perpetual injunction in respect of the suit lands described in the schedule of the plaint. During pendency of the suit, the mother of the appellants herein died leaving her sons to fight the legal battle. The appellants claimed in their pleadings that their father Purna Chandra Debnath had been possessing the suit lands since 1955 reclaiming the same denying right, title and interest of others and thus by efflux of time, the possession turned into his ownership and after demise of their father they had been possessing the suit lands. Dunng the settlement operation at bujharat stage, the lands were recorded in the name of Relief and Rehabilitation Department of the State showing the appellants' father in column 24 as illegal possessor. But later, the husband of the respondent Kamini Kr. Debnath (now deceased) managed to record his name in the finally published khatian as illegal possessor in the suit land and after his demise, the present respondent and others, who were arrayed as defendants in the suit tried to dispossess the appellants on 13.8.1989, compelling them to file the suit with the prayers noted above.

3. The respondent herein, who is the widow of Kamini Kr. Debnath along with others resisted the suit admitting that the suit lands were owned by the Relief and Rehabilitation Department of the Government, but as refugee, Kamini Kr. Debnath was allowed to reside on the said land and the finally published record of rights has correctly shown his name as possessor. Purna Ch. Debnath, the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants herein, was the brother of the respondent, who came to India from Bangladesh in 1973 and she permitted him to live with her on the suit land. After the demise of Purna Ch. Debnath, his legal heirs, the appellants herein, continued to stay in the suit land, particularly in plot No.6118. Thus they have always been permissive possessors of the suit lands under the respondent and in course of time, the appellants forced her, when she became widow having none else to support her, to take shelter with her relatives.

4. The learned trial court on the basis of the respective pleadings of the parties framed following four issues : -

(i) Whether plaintiff and their predecessors have been possessing the suit land since 1955 and whether they have acquired a possessory right therein ?

(ii) Whether defendants threatened to dispossess them as alleged ? (iii) Whether plaintiffs are entitled to any relief, if so, to what extent ? (iv) Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form ?

The learned trial court dismissed the suit proceeding on the premise that the suit lands being admittedly owned by the State Government, the prayer of the plaintiffs-appellants for declaration of title by adverse possession without making the State Government party to the proceeding is not maintainable. Discussing the evidence and other materials on record, the learned trial court further held that the plaintiffs-appellants were not found to be in possession and consequently, the prayer for permanent injunction and confirmation of possession was not sustainable in law.

6. Against the dismissal of the suit by the learned trial court, the appellant herein filed Title Appeal No.3 of 1996 before the learned District Judge, West Tripura,

Click Here to Read the rest of this document