The plaintiff, as a permissive possessor, had the right to protect his possession against intruders and was entitled to recovery of possession.

This second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of the Civil Procedure is directed against the appellate judgment and decree dated 11.10.2010 passed by the learned District Judge, North Tripura, Kailashahar, in Title Appeal No.16 of 2010 whereunder the original judgment and decree dated 19.06.2010 passed by learned Civil Judge, Jr. Division, Kanchanpur, North Tripura in Title Suit No.41 of 2008 was set aside.

2. Heard learned Sr. counsel Mr. D. Chakraborty for the appellant and learned counsel, Ms. P. Dhar for the respondents.

3. The appellant as plaintiff (hereinafter mentioned as plaintiff) instituted Title Suit No.41 of 2008 against the defendant-respondents (hereinafter mentioned as defendants) seeking declaration that the plaintiff is the permissive possessor of the land described in Scheduled A of the plaint and further prayed for recovery of possession of Schedule B land which is part of the land described in Schedule A of the plaint.

4. The plaintiff, inter alia, contended that the suit land described in Schedule A of the plaint has been recorded in Khatian No.15 of Mouja Uttar Machmara, C.S. Plot No.330 which corresponds to R.S. Plot No.542 measuring 0.09 acres belonged to one Girish Chandra Dey, S/o Gopal Chandra Dey who was a distant relative (uncle) of the plaintiff and said Girish Chandra Dey was in possession of the land and used to reside in a kuchha hut on the suit land. On 07.11.1970, said Girish Chandra Dey handed over possession of the A Schedule land to the plaintiff out of natural love and affection and asked the plaintiff to construct dwelling hut on the suit land and to reside thereon and thereafter he went out on a pilgrimage in different holy places of India and Girish Chandra Dey assured that on his return from pilgrimage he would execute a gift deed in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff thereafter reconstructed the huts on the suit land and was residing on the suit land with his mother Soudamini Deb. He used to pay revenue regularly and from the year 1984 and started residing on the suit land with his family on regular basis. Khatian No.15 was prepared and finally published on 31.03.1993 wherein in Col. No.24 the plaintiff and his mother were recorded as permissive possessor of the suit land and such entry in the record of right was never challenged by anybody. His mother Soudamini Deb died on 29.08.1995 and after the death of the mother he has been possessing the suit land absolutely as a permissive possessor of Girish Chandra Dey.

It is also contended by the plaintiff that Girish Chandra Dey did not return from pilgrimage and therefore, could not execute the gift deed as per commitment and nobody could say whereabouts of Girish Chandra Dey till the date of filing of the suit. It is the case of the plaintiff that defendant No.1 and defendant No.3 had been possessing some plots of land to the adjacent eastern side near road of the suit land which was Khas land and while widening the road this Khas land was occupied by the Govt. and thereafter on 10.11.2004, the defendant Nos. 1 and 3 in collusion with defendant No.2 occupied B Schedule land forcefully despite objection raised by the plaintiff and constructed two rooms on the B Schedule land and the rooms described in Schedule C to the plaint and thereby dispossessed the plaintiff from the suit land of Schedule B. The plaintiff thereafter on 10.11.2004 itself reported the incident to the O.C., Pacharthal P.S. who submitted a police report to the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Kanchanpur for drawing up a proceeding under Section 145 of Cr.P.C. and accordingly, SDM, Kanchanpur drawn up a proceeding under Section 145 of Cr.P.C. vide Case No.234 of 2005 and during inquiry of that proceeding the Revenue Inspector submitted reports on 20.08.2005 and 07.10.2005 supporting the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff had been possessing the suit land but the SDM did not adjudicate upon the matter and kept it pending. In the meantime, the defendants on 25.