The property can be identified by both boundary and survey plot numbers, and a discrepancy in the boundary description should not lead to the dismissal of a suit if the plaintiff has established title and possession over the land.

S.C. Das, J.:-

This second appeal is directed against the Judgment and Decree dated 13.07.2005, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Belonia, South Tripura in Title Appeal No. 06 of 2005 whereunder the learned Additional District Judge set aside the Judgment & Decree dated 06.04.2005 passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Belonia in Title Suit No. 13 of 1981. Heard learned senior counsel, Mr. S.M. Chakraborty for the appellants and learned counsel, Mr. Nepal Majumder for the respondents.

2. The second appeal has been admitted for hearing on the following substantial question of law:-

1. Whether after arriving at a concurrent finding that the identity of the suit land was not clear in the plaint, the learned appellant court below had any scope to grant decree for permanent injunction on the basis of plot number when the land of the defendants were also included in the schedule of the suit land given in the plaint?

2. Whether the learned appellate court below had any jurisdiction in giving finding as to the right, title and interest of the plaintiff over the suit land when the suit was only for permanent injunction and no such prayer was there in the plaint and the same were categorically denied by the defendants?

3. Himangshu Bikash Datta @ Himangshu Bimal Datta, the predecessor of the present respondents instituted Title Suit No. 13 of 1981 as plaintiff (hereinafter mentioned as ’plaintiff’) in the Court of the then Munsiff, Belonia inter alia stating that one Annada Prasad Singha Roy was the owner of vast areas of land under jote No. 526 of Mouza-West Pipariakhola, which was recorded in khatian No. 416, C.S. (old) plot No. 610 and out of that land, the said Annada Prasad Singha Roy on 22.04.1968 sold out 7 kanis (2.80 acres) of land to the plaintiff and the plaintiff got physical possession of the land from the vendor. Thereafter, the plaintiff mutated the purchased land in his name and khatian No. 1561 was created in the name of the plaintiff for those 7 kanis of purchased land. The plaintiff grown various kinds of trees on the suit land and on 21.03.1981 A.D. when the plaintiff went to the suit land, the defendants threatened to dispossess him from the suit land and further threatened that the trees grown by the plaintiff in the suit land would be extracted and taken away by the defendants. Plaintiff therefore instituted the suit praying for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from entering into the suit land.

4. Defendant No. 1 (since deceased), the predecessor of the present appellants, and, defendant No. 2, i.e. the appellant No. 1 jointly filed the written statement inter alia contending that Annada Prasad Singha Roy, the vendor of the plaintiff never owned or possessed any land under jote No. 526 and that the said transaction between the plaintiff and his vendor Annada Prasad Singha Roy was vague. It is contended that defendant No. 1, Rebati Mohan Bal, since deceased got settlement of 5 kanis of land of old jote No. 846 and thereafter, also purchased 10 kanis of land of jote No. 89 and became owner of 15 kanis of land. Subsequently, another 1.20 decimals of land was purchased from Pulin Behari Shil Sharma of khatian No. 757 and they were in possession of the purchased land. It is contended by the defendants that there were discrepancy and contradiction in respect of description of suit land in the plaint because the boundary given was wrong and it was covering the land of the defendants. It is stated that the plaintiff has shown in his southern boundary as the land of Nirada Sundari Majumder whereas in between Nirada Sundari Majumder and the plaintiff there were lands of plot No. 1640 recorded in the name of State of Tripura but in possession of the defendants. The suit land described in the plaint was vague and unidentifiable and hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed.

5. The defendants in their written statement also set up a counter claim, but ultimately, as it appears, the