This appeal filed under Section 100 of the CPC has been questioning the legality of the judgment and decree dated 26.06.2009 and 04.07.2009 respectively, delivered in Title Appeal No.05 of 2009 by the Addl. District Judge, South Tripura, Belonia, reversing the judgment and decree dated 24.03.2009 and 31.03.2009 delivered in Title Suit No.20 of 2007 by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Belonia, South Tripura.

02. The plaintiff filed the suit for declaration of title and for permanent injunction in respect of the suit land as delineated in the plaint. The crux, which is essential for appreciating the challenge, is that having found one Sadhu Charan Tripura homeless and landless and on possession of the suit land, the competent authority allotted the said land in his favour and in due course of time his name had been recorded under khatian No.1878 of moujaWest Pipariakhola, Barpathari pertaining to the plots No.4169/4161 measuring 4.44 acres. Sadhu Charan Tripura had four daughters and all the daughters were married when Sadhu Charan Tripura died in the year 2001. He had no other legal heirs except his daughters. According to the plaintiff, the daughters of Sadhu Charan Tripura sold the entire property to her on consideration of Rs.1,36,000/by a sale deed No.1933 dated 11.05.2007 and thus the plaintiff came into possession over the said land which has been shown in the scheduleA of the plaint. On 30.05.2007 the respondents attempted to intrude into the possession of the plaintiff. Hence, the suit has been instituted along with an ancillary petition seeking temporary injunction.

03. The defendants by filing the written statement has stated that the provisions of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 so far inheritance of Sadhu Charan Tripura is concerned, shall not apply. They have categorically denied that the daughters of Sadhu Charan Tripura can be the owner and possessor of the suit land and thus the socalled transfer of the suit land by those daughters are entirely unsustainable. In the suit, those daughters for obvious reasons were not impleaded because the dispute relates entirely to the possession over the land and the overt act attributable to the defendants. The defendants have stated that during enquiry, which emerged out of P.D. Case No.514 of 2006, the daughters of Sadhu Charan Tripura could not identify the land of their father. According to them the registered sale deed dated 11.08.2007 is a product of wellknit conspiracy and as such, based thereon no title can be declared in favour of the plaintiff. Further case that has been projected is that the defendants had planted rubber trees over the suit land and that plantation was aged about 8 years at the time of institution of the suit and they also indicated in their written statement that they had been possessing the suit land for more than 12 years.

04. The trial court framed the following issues on consideration of the pleadings.

“(1) Is the suit maintainable in its present form?

(2) Has the plaintiff any cause of action?

(3) Is the story of threat is true?

(4) Is the plaintiff in possession of the suit land?

(5) Has the plaintiff right, title and interest over the suit land?

(6) Is the plaintiff entitled to have a decree as prayed for?

(7) What other relief or reliefs the parties are entitled to get?”

The plaintiff examined herself along with two other witnesses to probablise her case and the defendant No.1 and another witness were also examined in support of their claim. The plaintiff introduced (1) khatian No.1478 of moujaWest Pipariakhola (Exbt.1),

(2) Original sale deed dated 11.05.2007 (Exbt.2), (3) Certified copy of map of Mouja–West Pipariakhol, Sheet No.8 (Exbt.3), (4) Original death certificate of Sadhu Charan Tripura (Exbt.4), (5) Survival certificate of Sadhu Charan Tripura issued by the SubDivisional Magistrate (Exbt.5), (6) Notice in the name of Smti. Swapna Debi Noatia issued by the Tahashilder, Barpathari T.K. (Exbt.6) and (7) Extract copy of the ord