The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for proper reporting and mutation of rights in land as per TLR and LR Act Section 46.

This second appeal has been admitted for hearing on the following substantial questions of law:

1. Whether the impugned judgment and decree is perverse for non-consideration of the exhibited documents, Exbt.D1 and D2, which are relating to the same or identical land?

2. Whether a Court can declare title in favour of the legal heirs of the deceased vendor ignoring the title accrued on the basis of the sale deed, Exbt.D1 and D2, to the vendeedefendants in the suit?

2. Heard learned counsel, Ms. S. Deb (Gupta) for the appellants and learned counsel, Mr. R. Dutta for the respondents.

3. The respondents as plaintiffs (hereinafter mentioned as plaintiffs) instituted Title Suit No.4 of 2008 in the Court of Civil Judge, Jr. Division, Sabroom against defendantappellants (hereinafter mentioned as defendants) seeking declaration of title and recovery of possession of the suit land described in the schedule of the plaint. The description of the suit land contained in the schedule of the plaint reads as follows:

“Within district South Tripura, Subdivision Sabroom, Tashil-Manubazar, Mouja, Khatian No.241, plots No.784/1023, (Sabek), 2319(Hal) land measuring 1.70 acres, class of land Tilla, bounded on the North by –Lunga, South by Govt. Road, East by Sachindra Kr. Debnath, West by Lunga, over which declaration of right, title and absolute ownership of the plaintiffs and recovery of possession in favour of the plaintiffs after evicting the defendants there from after demolishing all existing structures and plantation thereon is sought for.”

The plaintiffs also prayed for mesne profit @ Rs.500/per day w.e.f. 1st January, 2008 till the recovery of the suit land.

4. In short, the case of the plaintiffs was that the suit land was allotted in the name of their father Sachindra Kumar Nath and it was recorded in Khatian No.241, Sabek Plot No.784/1023, Hal Plot No.2319, measuring 1.70 acres and Sachindra Kumar Nath was in possession of the land. Another Plot of land measuring .36 acres recorded in Khatian No.150, Plot Nos.574, 579 and 580 was also situated nearby the suit land wherein Sachindra Kumar Nath used to reside as a farm house. The entire land was recorded in Khatian No.150, measuring 2.06 acres which was finally published on 28.05.1966. In the year 1990 Sachindra Kumar Nath with his family shifted to Rajnagar under Manubazar P.S. and the suit land was lying vacant. At that time Sudhir Chandra Biswas, father of defendant No.4 and Samar Chakraborty, defendant No.1 as well as Arun Biswas, defendant No.2 approached Sachindra Kumar Nath to use the suit land for grazing of cows etc. and Sachindra Nath allowed them to possess accordingly on condition that they should vacate the suit land as and when would be asked. It was in the year 1992 that the said permissive possession was given. Sachindra Kr. Nath died on 10.12.1995. The defendants were recorded as permissive possessor in the Khatian published finally and they acquired no right, title and interest in the suit land. After the death of Sachindra Kr. Nath, the plaintiffs being the son and daughters became owner of the suit land and they requested the defendants to vacate the suit land but the defendants did not do so. The plaintiff served a notice dated 01.01.2008 to the defendants to vacate the suit land within 10 days but the defendants did not vacate the suit land. The plaintiffs, therefore, prayed for declaration of their right, title and for recovery of possession with mesne profit.

5. The defendants contested the suit by filing written statement, inter alia, contending that the suit land originally belonged to Sachindra Kumar Nath, the father of the plaintiffs and that the said Sachindra Kumar Nath while was owner in possession of the suit land, by executing a Saledeed, for consideration, dated 11.04.1977, sold out 1.62 acres of suit land to Sudhir Chandra Biswas, fat