The plaintiff's continuous possession of a part of the suit land entitled him to a declaration of title in respect of the shop hut over the land of .023 acres, based on the principles of adverse possession and the unity of occupation and animus possidendi.

1. Both the second appeals presented under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 were heard together on the prayer of learned counsel of both side and this common judgment is passed which shall govern both the appeals.

2. The appeals were admitted for hearing on the following common substantial question of law:-

“Whether the first appellate court has declared title of the plaintiff over the entire suit land on the doctrine of adverse possession without evidence?”

3. Heard learned counsel, Mr. Debalay Bhattacharji for the appellant in both the appeals; learned Sr. counsel, Mr. S.M. Chakraborty assisted by learned counsel, Ms. P. Sen for the respondent Nos. (1a) to (1e) and learned Advocate General, Mr. B.C. Das assisted by learned Addl. G.A., Mrs. A. S. Lodh for the respondents 2 and 3, in both the appeals.

4. Radha Ballav Sutradhar, since deceased, the predecessor of respondent Nos. (1a) to (1e), as plaintiff, (herein-after mentioned as plaintiff) instituted Title Suit No.33/1998 in the Court of Civil Judge, Jr. Division, Udaipur, South Tripura seeking declaration of his title over the suit land, described in the schedule of the plaint, measuring .052 acres, by way of adverse possession and also prayed for perpetual injunction restraining the respondent Nos.2 and 3 who were arrayed as defendant Nos. 1 and 2 (herein-after mentioned as defendant Nos. 1 and 2) in the suit, from evicting the plaintiff and his tenants from the suit land.

5. On the prayer of Amar Ranjan Sarkar, the appellant herein, made before the trial Court, his name was arrayed as defendant No.3 in the suit (herein-after mentioned as defendant No.3) against whom the plaintiff sought no relief.

6. Shorn off unnecessary details, the case of the plaintiff is that the suit land measuring .052 acres was lying abandoned with jungle and the plaintiff reclaimed the same clearing the jungles in the last part of 1957 and had been possessing same growing seasonal crops etc. In the middle part of 1958 he constructed a shop hut with galvanized sheet roof in the northern-most part of the suit land and started a tea stall which was the only source of his income. In the remaining part of the suit land i.e. to the southern side of the tea stall, he further constructed ‘Dokan viti’ shed in the year 1965 and let it on rent to different tenants namely Sukumar Das, Deshapremik Roy and Rabindra Bhattacharjee etc. He was collecting rent from those tenants and thereby enjoying the usufructs of the land and continuously possessing the same without any interference from any corner exercising all acts of right, title, interest and possession denying the claim of the rightful owner. The suit land was recorded in C.S. Khatian No.616, Plot No.1528 which was finally published on 01.02.1969 and in that Khatian in Column No.23 his name was recorded as unlawful occupier of the suit land. Subsequently, at the time of revisional survey the suit land was recorded in Khatian No.1/19, Hal Plot No.3789 measuring .030 acres and Khatian No.1/101, Hal Plot No.3790 measuring .021 acres. While he was in continuous and undisturbed possession of the suit land denying the right, title and interest of the rightful owner, on 27.04.1988 he was served with a notice by the Halka Officer (Settlement Officer) of Udaipur to establish his claim for allotment of the suit land recorded in Plot No.3789 and 3790. It is the case of the plaintiff that he is in continuous adverse possession of the suit land from the last part of 1957 and the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 made an attempt to evict him from the suit land and therefore, he filed the suit seeking declaration of his right, title and interest by way of adverse possession and injunction against defendant Nos. 1 and 2 from evicting him from the suit land.

7. Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 submitted a joint written statement, inter alia, contending that the suit land is a public premises as defined under the Tripura Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occup