The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of Order IX Rule 9 of the CPC in determining the maintainability of the original suit and clarifying the possession and title of the defendant-appellants over the suit land.

Heard Mr. D. Chakraborty, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. H Laskar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as Mr. KN Bhattacharjee, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. S Roy, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

2. This is an appeal under Section 100 of the CPC from the judgment dated 28.05.2015 delivered in Title Appeal No. 48/2011 by the Addl. District Judge, West Tripura, Agartala (Court No.3) partly setting aside the judgment delivered in Title Suit No. 62/2007 by the Civil Judge, Jr. Div., Court No.2, West Tripura, Agartala.

3. At the time of admitting this appeal by the order dated 08.12.2015, the following substantial question of law was framed by this Court:

“Whether the original suit was not maintainable for the bar as contemplated in Order IX Rule 8 of CPC.”

Liberty was granted to the appellant to raise any other substantial question of law.

4. Mr. Chakraborty, learned senior counsel at the beginning has pointed out that inadvertently the relevant provision of law has not been correctly mentioned in the substantial question of law. He asked for reframing the substantial question of law by correcting that mistake. Accordingly, the substantial question of law is re-formulated as under:

“Whether the original suit was not maintainable for the bar as contemplated in Order IX Rule 9 of the CPC?”

5. That apart, the additional substantial question of law as required to be framed by this Court for purpose of determining this appeal would be as follows:

“Whether the first appellate court has read the agreement of sale dated 08.12.1967 (Exbt.C) properly at the time of returning the finding as appearing in paragraph 14 of the judgment dated 28.05.2015 in Title Appeal 48/2011?”

6. A suit being Title Suit No. 62/2007 was instituted by the respondents for declaration of title, confirmation of possession of the suit land and permanent injunction. The suit land as described in the schedule pertains to Khatian No.2053 and 2050, CS Plot No. 6837, 6838, 6839, 6840 and 6841 measuring 1.15 acres of Mouja Barjala. The trial court by the judgment dated 14.07.2011 dismissed the suit holding, inter alia, that the plaintiffs are not the rightful owners of the suit land. Hence, they are not entitled to a decree of confirmation of possession. For the same reason, the prayer for permanent injunction was also dismissed.

7. In this regard, the trial court has referred one decision of the Gauhati High Court in Narendra Chandra Deb & Others Vs. Kamini Mohan Deb reported in AIR 1979 NOC 169 (Gauhati) where the Gauhati High Court has held:

“A person can sue on the basis of his rights reflected in the record of rights, claim decree and the plaintiff in whose favour an entry is made is not required to establish by supporting evidence that the entry was correctly made. It is not at all necessary for him to adduce evidence to establish that there was foundation for making the entry and the record of rights shall be presumed to be correct until that has been rebutted”.

8. Being aggrieved by that judgment, the plaintiff-respondents, preferred an appeal being Title Appeal No. 48/2011 in the Court of the District Judge, West Tripura, Agartala. In due course of time, the said appeal was transferred to the Court of the Additional District Judge, West Tripura, Agartala (Court No.3) for disposal in accordance with law.

9. By the judgment dated 28.05.2015, which has been challenged in this appeal, the first appellate court did not interfere with the finding in respect of the part of the suit land measuring 0.93 acres which has been recorded in Khatian No. 2053 and it has been declared that the plaintiff-appellants in the said appeal, the respondents herein, have the right, title and interest over the said land and as a consequence of that finding the finding returned by the trial court is affirmed observing that over the land measuring 0.93 acres recorded in Khatian No. 2053 of the said Mouja, the plaintiff-appellants [the resp