This second appeal under section 100 of the Code of Civil procedure, 1908 has been admitted for hearing on the following substantial questions of law:-

“(1) Whether the courts below committed error by refusing to accept the oral evidence of the defendant in support of his plea of possession?

(2) Whether the finding of the learned trial judge that, in view of the allotment order passed by the Collector in favor of the vendor of the plaintiff, the oral evidence adduced by the defendant regarding possession was not acceptable, is perverse?”

2. Heard learned senior counsel, Mr. D. Chakraborty, assisted by learned counsel, Mr. H. Laskar for the appellant. No representation on behalf of the respondent.

3. The respondent as plaintiff (hereinafter mentioned as ‘plaintiff’) instituted Title Suit No.3 of 2009 in the Court of Civil Judge(Senior Division), Dharmanagar, North Tripura against the defendant appellant (hereinafter mentioned as ‘defendant’) seeking decree declaring right, title and interest of the plaintiff in the suit land and also for recovery of khas possession of the suit land from the defendant. The Plaintiff inter alia contended that the suit land was allotted in the name