JUDGMENT

1. This second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure is directed against the appellate judgment and decree dated 18.08.2006, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Court No. 2, Agartala, West Tripura in Title Appeal No. 24 of 2002, where-under, the learned Additional District Judge affirmed the judgment and decree dated 29.04.2002, passed by learned Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Court No. 1, Agartala, West Tripura, in Title Suit No. 73 of 1994.

2. Heard learned counsel Mr. D. K. Biswas for the appellants and learned Sr. counsel Mr. S. Deb assisted by learned counsel Mr. R. Dasgupta for the respondents.

3. The second appeal was admitted for hearing by order dated 02.03.2007 on the following substantial question of law:-

Whether the law relating to Adverse Possession has been properly discussed by the learned court below or not?

4. At the time of hearing of the appeal on 13.06.2014, further, following substantial questions of law have been formulated:

(I) Whether the suit has been abated as a whole for the death of the plaintiff No. 1?

(II) Whether a relief of injunction or any other relief is admissible in a case where the claim of adverse possession fails?

5. Gauranga Chandra Pal, since deceased, (predecessor of appellant Nos. 1(a) to 1(f) and Nitai Chandra Pal, appellant No. 2, both full blood brothers (hereinafter mentioned as plaintiffs), jointly filed Title Suit No. 73 of 1994 in the Court of Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Court No. 1, Agartala, West Tripura seeking declaration that they acquired title by virtue of adverse possession in the suit land described in the schedule of the plaint and also prayed for permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men and agents from entering into and/or disturbing the possession of the plaintiffs and further prayed for declaring the sale deed if any, executed by defendant No. 1 in favour of defendant No. 2 in respect of the suit land as null and void.

6. Case of the plaintiffs' in short is that, they jointly entered into an oral agreement with defendant No. 1 to purchase the suit land at a consideration of Rs.19,000/- and accordingly paid the entire amount to defendant No. 1 who had assured to execute the sale deed within a week but unfortunately defendant No. 1 did not execute the sale deed and as a result, the plaintiffs entered into the suit land forcibly sometimes in January, 1968 and continued possession of the suit land without interruption and disturbance. Defendant No. 1 instituted objection case No. 191/1988 before the Assistant Settlement Officer against recording of the name of plaintiff No. 1 in the khatian but that objection was rejected by order dated 10.11.1988. Plaintiff No. 1 thereafter filed a case under Section 45 of Tripura Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act (TLR and LR Act) seeking to record his name as a forceful possessor of the suit land in Col. No. 24 of the Khatian and the Settlement Officer by order dated 01.12.1990 allowed the petition of the plaintiff and directed recording of name of the plaintiff No. 1 in Col. No. 24 of Khatian in the name of defendant No. 1 in respect of the suit land and the order stands good. Defendant No. 1 did not prefer any appeal against that order. Having failed to change the entry in the record of right, the defendant No. 1 collusively arranged a sale deed with defendant No. 2 who was a tenant and tried to dispossess the plaintiffs from the suit land. Defendant No. 3 summoned a meeting at the instance of the other defendants through the Chairman of Notified Area Authority of Teliamura on 15.05.1994 and a resolution was adopted in the meeting wherein the plaintiffs were compelled to put signatures and immediately thereafter the plaintiffs informed the Chairman of the Notified Area Authority that the resolution was not signed by the plaintiffs voluntarily and thereby recorded their objection. Thereafter on 23.05.1994, the defendant No. 2 made an attempt to enter into the suit land damaging t