Pleadings of the parties in both the suits are almost similar. The points of law in both the second appeals are identical. Judgments passed by the trial Court as well as the first appellate Court are also almost identical in both the cases and hence both the appeals were heard together and this common judgment is passed in respect of both the second appeals.

2. Both the second appeals have been admitted on the following identical substantial questions of law:-

“(i) Whether the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and the appellate Court suffers from perversity?”

3. FACTS OF RSA NO.37 OF 2011:

3.1 Appellant as plaintiff (hereinafter mentioned as plaintiff) instituted Title Suit No.23 of 2006 against the defendant-respondents (hereinafter mentioned as defendants) in the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Udaipur, South Tripura seeking declaration of his right, title and interest and for recovery of possession of the suit land described in the schedule of the plaint from defendant Nos.1 and 2.

3.2. The plaintiff, inter alia contended that the suit land was a khas land of the Government of Tripura (respondent No.3) which was lying with full of jungles. About 40 years ago he reclaimed the suit land and planted various trees and thereby possessing the suit land. Since the plaintiff was found in possession of the suit land about 30 years ago, respondent No.3 allotted the suit land in his name and he continued his possession. C.S. Khatian No.558 was prepared in his name and subsequently Revisional Survey Khatian No.226 which was finally published on 21.02.1984 was prepared in his name as an allottee of the suit land. The plaintiff could not properly maintain the records of allotment and those were lost. He approached the office of SDM, Udaipur for having a copy of the allotment order but he was told that it was a very old case and in the absence of specific number and date it was not possible to issue a duplicate copy of the allotment order. While he was in possession of the suit land, on 14.04.2000 AD which corresponds to 1st day of Baishakh 1407 BS, he was forcefully dispossessed by the defendant Nos.1 and 2 from the suit land. He approached the Chairman of the Village Committee (Panchayat) of Raiya Bari and a committee meeting was held on 25.08.2006 wherein the defendant Nos.1 and 2 were directed to hand over possession of the suit land to the plaintiff but the defendants did not comply the decision of the village committee in spite of assurance and therefore he instituted the suit for declaration of his title and recovery of possession.

3.3. The defendant Nos.1 and 2 contested the suit by filing joint written statement inter alia contending that the father of defendant No.1 occupied the suit land about 45/50 years ago and had been residing on the suit land. The defendants are in continuous possession of the suit land for 45/50 years and the plaintiff never possessed the suit land. The khatian in the name of the plaintiff was created in collusion with the settlement staff which was false and no right of the plaintiff accrued in the suit land because of that khatian. Since the plaintiff was never in possession of the suit land he cannot get a decree as prayed for.

3.4. Defendant No.3 also contested the suit by filing written statement, inter alia contending that there was an inquiry made by the defendant and it was found that defendant No.1 was possessing 5.40 acres of land and defendant No.2 was possessing 0.20 acres of land out of the suit land and 0.40 acres of land was in possession of Anganwadi Centre. The plaintiff was not found in possession of the suit land. The plaintiff claimed allotment of the suit land in his favour but it was not possible to trace out the allotment case number and year, since the record was very old and therefore the defendant was not in a position either to admit or deny the allotment. It is further stated that on the face of the ROR it appears to the defendant that the allotment was