Heard Mr. A. Dasgupta, learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as Mr. D. Chakraborty, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. H. Laskar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

[2] This is an appeal under Section 100 of the C.P.C. challenging the legality of the judgment and decree dated 05.11.2009 delivered in Title Appeal No. 13 of 2009 by the Addl. District Judge, South Tripura, Belonia by reversing the judgment and decree dated 25.08.2009 delivered in Title Suit No.32 of 2006 by the Civil Judge, Jr. Division, Belonia, South Tripura.

[3] By the order dated 02.07.2010 when this appeal was admitted, the following substantial questions of law were formulated for consideration:

(i) Whether the Respondent could be allowed to file suits after suit against the Appellant on the same cause of action and if did so whether is all those suits would not be barred under Order 2 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code?

(ii) Whether the Suit for perpetual injunction of the plaintiff (Respondent of the instant Appeal) is dismissed on contest on the ground that he was not in possession of the suit land had any right to file a fresh suit for recovery of possession of the suit land and if he did so whether would it not attract the section 11 of the code of civil procedure?

[4] The dispute involved in this appeal has a chequered history. A suit was initially filed by the present respondent for declaration of title and correction of Khatian in the year 1981 being Title Suit No. 16 of 1981 but the said suit was dismissed for default by the order dated 17.05.1982. Thereafter, the respondent filed another suit in the year 1984 being Title Suit No.57 of 1984 for declaration of title, permanent injunction and also for the correction of record of right. The said suit was dismissed by the judgment and decree dated 08.12.1994 holding that as the defendant proved that they are in possession of the suit land and as the entries in the records of right are also in their name, it can be easily said that the defendants are in possession of the suit land. Based thereon, it has been held that the plaintiff is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for. By the suit under reference being Title Suit No.32 of 2006, the respondent had prayed the following reliefs:

(a) to declare the right, title, interest of plaintiff over the suit land.

(b) for recovery of possession of the suit land by way of evicting the defendant and his men or agent therefrom.

(c) for cost of the suit.

(d) any other relief/reliefs your honour deem fit and proper to granted to the plaintiff.

[5] There is no dispute that the suit land in Title Suit No.57 of 1984 subsequently renumbered as Title Suit No.57 of 1989 and the suit land in the Title Suit No.32 of 2006 is identical. It is not also in dispute that the appellant herein instituted another suit being Title Suit No.02 of 1999 for declaration of right, title and interest by adverse possession, permanent injunction restraining the respondent from entering into the suit land and for correction of Khatian and consequential reliefs. It is not also in dispute that the suit land in Title Suit No.02 of 1999 is also the same suit land. The said suit being Title Suit No.02 of 1999 has been dismissed by the Civil Judge, Jr. Division, Belonia, South Tripura by the judgment and decree dated 09.04.2003 holding that:

Plaintiff of this suit prayed for a decree for directing to the Revenue Authority for mutation of the name of the plaintiff in the suit Khatian by deleting the name of Late Birendra Kr. Nath who is the father of the Defendant from column No.13 of Khatian No.215. Exbt.1 is the Khatian No.215 and column No.13 relates with the description as well as possession in details in respect of the actual owner of the land. But in discussing and deciding to the Issue No.(iii) along with the Issue Nos. (i) and (ii) it is found that plaintiff acquired no right, title and interest over the suit land by way of adverse possession and as