The main legal point established in the judgment is that the plaintiff's failure to prove their possession and rebut the correctness of the entry in the khatian led to the dismissal of the suit.

This is an appeal under Section 96 of the CPC from the judgment dated 24.02.2012 delivered in Title Suit No.10/2006 by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Court No.2, West Tripura, Agartala. By the said judgment, the suit filed by the respondent herein for declaration of title and recovery of khash possession of the suit land described in the Schedule to the plaint and comprised in revenue holding No.1, old khatian No.798 jer 808, revisional khatian No.18457, old plot No.1708/12037, corresponding to revisional plot No.4143, measuring 0.145.

2. The defendants, being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, has preferred this appeal on various grounds of objection, which can be encapsulated as that appreciation of the evidence has not been properly carried out by the trial court and misconstruction of the provisions of law as to presumption as provided under Section 43(3) of the Tripura Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act, 1960. Ancillary thereto, it has been asserted that the source of title in favour of the plaintiff, the respondent herein, has not been properly proved inasmuch as, admittedly the suit land was retained by the intermediary, but that fact not has been proved by the plaintiff and further that Nabadwip Chandra Paul could not legally represent the plaintiff as per the Societies Registration Act, 1860.

3. For purpose of appreciating the grounds of objection as raised in this appeal, the essential facts may be introduced at the beginning.

4. The suit was filed by the plaintiff respondent on 20.02.2006 against the defendants No. 3, 4, 5 and the predecessors of the defendants No. 1(a) to 2(d), namely Manindra Chandra Dey and Kalipada Dey, who died on 27.12.2008 and 31.01.2009 respectively. According to the plaintiff, namely Sarba Dharma Mission, a registered society, represented by its President, namely Nabadwip Chandra Paul, the plaintiff is the owner of a piece of land measuring 0.140 acre corresponding to 7 gandas 1 kranta, appertaining to old khatian No.798 jer 808, corresponding to the revisional khatian No.18457, comprised of old plot No.1708/12037(P), corresponding to revisional plot No.4143 of mouja Badharghat, hereinafter referred to as the suit land. The plaintiff got a vast tract of land measuring 10 drones including the suit land from the Talukdar, namely Smt. Kanchanprava Devi by a registered patta dated 17.12.1949. With the advent of the new legal regime, for introduction of the Tripura Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act, 1960 (‘TLR & LR Act’, in short), the said land did not vest with the State but the plaintiff became the raiyat in possession under the Government of Tripura. On observing the due process, the plaintiff’s name has been recorded in the khatian No.798 jer 808 after the first settlement operation for the C.S. plot No.1708/12037 at mouja Badharghat. After the revisional settlement operation, the suit land was recorded in the khatian No.18457 in the R.S. plot No.4143 in the name of the plaintiff.

5. The plaintiff has asserted that they were in possession since 1949, till 04.02.2006, asserting their possession by growing vegetables without any obstacle from any quarters. The dwelling house of the defendants are admittedly situated in the adjacent south boundary of the suit land and having advantage thereof, the defendants and their predecessor in interest used to create disturbance over the suit land. In the month of December, 2004, the plaintiff in its annual conference resolved that in the event of any land dispute between the neighbouring land holders and the plaintiff, appropriate legal action should be taken against the wrongdoers. On 02.06.2005, the defendants filed an application to the Secretary of the plaintiff for granting settlement of the suit land. Thereafter, the defendants did not pursue the said prayer. On 05.02.2006 at noon, two members of the plaintiff society, namely Kalipada Paul and Chandra Sekhar Paul, observed that the defendants were excavating trench on the suit land