The main legal point established in the judgment is that adverse possession can mature a title and permanently restrain the defendants from interfering with the possession of the suit land.

By this appeal filed under Section 100 of the CPC, the judgment dated 18.05.2012 delivered in Title Appeal No.35 of 2012 by the Additional District Judge, West Tripura, No.4, Agartala has been challenged.

2. At the time of admitting the appeal, the following substantial question of was formulated for purpose of hearing:

“Whether the Civil Court has jurisdiction to restrain the Government by a decree of perpetual injunction preventing it from exercising its statutory power of eviction of the plaintiff from the suit land?”

Even though the leave was given to the appellants to raise any other substantial question of law, but Mr. D. Chakraborty, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants has not proposed any other substantial question of law. Hence, the substantial question of law as above, alone would be considered in the perspective.

3. The respondent No.1 filed the suit for declaration of right, title and interest over the suit land as described in the Schedule-B to the plaint, based on adverse possession and also for a decree of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants and their representatives from entering into the suit land or from disturbing the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the suit land.

4. The pleaded case in the suit being Title Suit No.02 of 2012 filed in the court of the Civil Judge, Jr. Division, Court No.2, Agartala, West Tripura is that the suit land is a tilla class of land and was covered by jungle in the year 1952. The father of the plaintiff, namely Narendra Chandra Das came to Tripura from erstwhile East Pakistan immediately after the partition of the country. The father of the plaintiff occupied the suit land and asserted his right continuously by felling trees, selling woods and growing different types of seasonal crops. According to the plaintiff, the said possession was hostile and open to the knowledge of all concerned including the appellants. In the month of June, 1992, the father of the plaintiff expired. Before his death, his father handed over the possession of the said land on 01.01.1992 to his two sons viz. the plaintiff and his younger brother, namely Rakhal Chandra Das without any break or discontinuation in the possession. The plaintiff and his brother continued in the possession by exercising their right. Even though the plaintiff is in possession over the suit land but his name has not been reflected in the new Khatian bearing No.1/71 of Mouza-Uttar Champamura against the land measuring 1.96 acres covered by the old plot No.4639 corresponding hal plot No.7846. On 18.02.1995, the plaintiff and his brother were served with notice dated 18.02.1995 asking them to apply for allotment of the said land, if they so desired but they did not file any application for allotment as the title was matured in their favour by way of adverse possession. The defendant No.4, the Upa-Pradhan of Uttar Champamura Gaon Panchayet, the respondent No.2 herein, entered into the suit land on 30.12.2011 with few other persons. The defendant No.4 informed the plaintiff that the Government has decided to allot the said land to some other persons and thus, he came to inspect the position of the land. They took the measurement of the land. On apprehension that the Government may take the possession from them by fore, the plaintiff filed the suit.

The defendants No.1, 2 & 3, the appellants herein, filed a joint written statement stating that the Schedule-A land as shown in the plaint is Khas land (the government land) measuring 1.96 acres. They admitted that in the Khatian No.1-1256 under plot No.4639, the name of the predecessor of the plaintiff was mentioned in the ‘remarks’ column as the forceful occupier since the year 1964. As the father of the plaintiff took possession of the suit land illegally and unauthorisedly, the name of the plaintiff’s father had entered in the ‘remarks’ column as the forceful occupier. But they denied the claim of adverse possession against them. The appella