S. Talapatra, J.—Against the judgment and decree dated 11.11.1998 passed in Title Appeal No. 01 of 1998 (hereinafter referred to as the impugned judgment) by the Additional District Judge, South Tripura, Belonia, this appeal u/s 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the CPC in short has been preferred by the defendant in the suit. The respondent instituted a suit being Title Suit No. 16 of 1995 for declaration of title and recovery of possession of the suit land as described in the schedule 'B' of the plaint which is excerpted hereunder for purpose of appreciation:

LAND OF SCHEDULE "B" (SUIT LAND)

Out of "A" schedule lands, land measuring 20 acres i.e. 10 gandas of land.

BOUNDARY OF THE SUIT LAND

North : Jagadish and others, South:--

Road, East :- Plaintiff's and others, West:--

Defendant,

Within this boundary land measuring 20 acres i.e. 10 gandas as under R.S. Plot No. 3098.

It surfaces from the records that the father of the respondent namely, Jogendra Kr. Saha was possessing the land described in the schedule "A" of the plaint after clearing jungles and bushes for 20-25 years. Thereafter made it fit for cultivation, orchard etc. On making huge expenditure he planted fruit-bearing trees such as banana, mango, jack fruit, coconut, betel nut etc. surrounding inside the "A" schedule land and he used to cultivate the rest of the land for growing paddy, chan and vegetables' etc. He was enjoying the usufructs from the said land without any disturbance from any corner. In the year 1975 the land was allotted in his favour by the Government of Tripura and khatian No. 1187 was opened in his name. In the year 1979, father of the plaintiff died leaving the plaintiff as his only heir and successor and the plaintiff stepped into the shoes of his father and started possessing the suit land in the same manner. In the course of the revisional survey and operation in the year 1982 the schedule "A" land was recorded in Parcha No. 1187, Plot No. 3094, 3112, 3095, 3098 and 3107 measuring 3.01 acres of Mouja-West Charakbai. It has been stated in the plaint that on 28.08.1988 corresponding to 11.05.1995 B.E. the defendant forcibly entered into a part of the "A" schedule land disregarding the protest raised by the plaintiff and dispossessed her from the land described in the schedule "B", the suit land. The plaintiff on 27.06.1995 received the copy of the finally published revisional survey khatian No. 897 of the said schedule "A" land and she found to her utter dismay that Plot No. 3098 as allotted to her predecessor is embraced by an entry in Column No. 24 of the record of right to the effect that "possession of Sukhendu Bikash Saha, S/o. Aparna Saha from the year 1385 B.5 on transfer in violation of Section 14(1)". The said entry in the column No. 24 according to the plaintiff was false as the defendant never possessed the suit land before the said dispossession. The plaintiff did know nothing about the record in the khatian against Plot No. 3098 and only on 27.06.1995 she learnt about it after receipt of the copy of the finally published khatian. It has been asserted further that for correction, she would take necessary legal action. She made all sorts of endeavours for recovering the dispossessed land but all were frustrated by the defendant, thus the suit was instituted for recovery of the suit land as the cause of action arose on 28.08.1988, the date of dispossession and also on 27.06.1995, the date of getting the copy of the finally published khatian as per the plaint.

It further appears from the record that the defendant-appellant herein decided the suit by filing the written statement. The case of the defendant as pleaded in his written statement is that the plaintiff has no cause of action and the suit is barred by the principles of waiver, acquiescence and estoppels and the suit is barred by law of limitation. However, it is stated that if the allegations/averments are not specifically admitted by the defendant in the written statement shal

Click Here to Read the rest of this document