The provisions of Section 27 and Article 112 of the Limitation Act prevail over Section 15 of the Tripura Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act, 1960 in cases of adverse possession.

This is an appeal under Section 100 of the CPC against the concurrent finding of fact returned by the judgment dated 12.09.2007 delivered in Title Appeal No.13 of 2006 by the Addl. District Judge, South Tripura, Udaipur.

2. The respondent No.1 instituted the suit for declaration of title by adverse possession, the permanent injunction and recovery of possession of the suit land, being Title Suit No.29 of 1996 in the Court of the Civil Judge, Jr. Divn., Belonia, South Tripura. For the purpose of limited necessity the pleadings are introduced at the outset.

According to the respondent No.1, hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff, his father namely Suresh Chandra Majumder since deceased had started a liquor shop in the year 1953 on the suit land and during the first survey operation the said land was surveyed and under the column No.24 of the relevant khatian No.3558, his father’s name was recorded as the forcible occupier. The said khatian was later on finally published. His father continued the possession till the year 1997 when he expired and thereafter the plaintiff and other proforma defendants, the legal heirs of Suresh Chandra Majumder continued that possession adversely on the said plot No.4033 comprised in the khatian No.3558 in Mouja Belonia, details of the said land has been detailed in the schedule appended to the plaint. Even in the year 1988 during the revisional survey operation name of the father was recorded as the unauthorised occupier in the register of unauthorised occupiers. Since that register is not designated as the public records, the issuance of certified copy of it or any part of it is not allowed. According to the plaintiff his father constructed a permanent structure over the suit land and after his death the plaintiff entered into that premises. Such possession was within the knowledge of the State and they raised no objection. Thus, on expiry of 30 years, the title matured in favour of the plaintiff by prescription in terms of Section 27 read with Article 112 of the schedule of the Limitation Act. The plaintiff has asserted that the defendants No.4 and 5 tried to dispossess him without having any legal authority. On 08.11.1996 those defendants made a desperate attempt to illegally dispossess the plaintiff from the suit land but their bid did not succeed. On 13.11.1996, the defendants No.4, 5 and 6 succeeded in dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit land during pendency of the suit. As a result, the plaintiff following the due process made an application for amendment of the plaint on 18.12.1996 on the premises that the suit was filed on 11.11.1996 and thereafter on 13.11.1996 the defendants No.4, 5 and 6 dispossessed the plaintiff from the suit land and hence he prayed for necessary amendment in the suit in terms of the schedule. The said amendment was allowed by the order dated 25.12.1996 and the pleadings were amended incorporating that dispossession, changing the cause title, converting the suit to a suit also for recovery, showing the schedule ‘C’ as the land wherefrom the plaintiff has been dispossessed by the defendants No.4, 5 and 6 and adding an additional prayer for decree of recovery of the schedule ‘C’ land. The requisite incorporation has been made in the suit. The defendants No.4 and 5 filed the written statements separately by denying the claim of the plaintiff and stating that the plaintiffs’ father was never in possession over the suit land since 1953. According to them, the plaintiffs were never in possession of the land mentioned in the schedule “C”. Those defendants therefore denied that they ever attempted to dispossess the plaintiff. According to those plaintiffs there is no hostile assertion or adverse possession. They admitted that it is only in the khatian published in 1968 the name of the plaintiffs’ father was shown in the column No.23 for the first time, but the khatian published in the year 1989 does not show the name of the plaintiff or other legal heirs of