This is an appeal under Section 100 of the CPC from the judgment dated 22.09.2014 delivered in Title Appeal No.23 of 2013 by the Additional District Judge, West Tripura, Agartala, Court No.5 on affirmance of the judgment dated 04.02.2013 delivered in Title Suit No.113 of 2010 by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, West Tripura, Agartala.

2. The plaintiff-respondent herein instituted the suit being Title Suit No.113/2010 for declaration, recovery of possession and perpetual injunction. It is the case of the plaintiff that he was the owner of the land as described in the Schedule-1 of the plaint. Out of the said land he had sold the land with the building as described in the Schedule-2A to Purnima Chowdhury, Suchitra Chowdhury and Sikha Chowdhury by the registered deed of sale dated 11.05.1992 and the land with building as described in the Schedule 2B to Shikha Saha (Roychoudhury) by the registered deed of sale dated 12.05.1992. Purnima Choudhury and two others as stated sold the entire land with building as described in the Schedule-2A of the plaint to the defendant No.1, Gautam Saha by the registered deed of sale by 18.05.1992 and Shikha Saha (Roychoudhury) sold her land with building under Schedule-2B to Nilima Saha, the defendant No.2 by the registered deed of sale dated 18.05.1992. After such purchase the defendants namely Gautam Saha and Nilima Saha mutated their names in the record of right in respect of the land as described in the Schedule 2A and 2B respectively. The total area purchased by the defendants, the appellants herein is 79x35 sq.ft. which has been described in the Schedule-2.

3. It is to be noted that the Schedule-2 land is situate in the northern part of the land as described in the Schedule-1. After the said sale the remaining part forming the southern part of the land as described in the Schedule-1 and separately described in the Schedule-3 remained with the plaintiff. The plaintiff has got the valid title and he is in the possession of the land recorded under Khatian No.30113. The land described in the Schedule-3A, 3B and the land with the part of the room described as the Schedule-3C are the suit land. The Schedule-3A land has been curved out for purpose of passage with the limited right from the land described in the Schedule-2A and 2B and for purpose of turning of their vehicle keeping the title intact with the plaintiff. The owner and the occupier of the land comprised in the Schedule-2A and 2B have been permitted to use that space along with the plaintiff. They were also allowed to remove the steps from the piece of land adjacent south of the building sold to Purnima Choudhury and others. But they did not remove the steps even though they have been using the space as a common path with the plaintiff. Purnima Choudhury and others as stated had sold the land and building as described in the Schedule-2A and Schedule 2B to the defendants-appellants. The plaintiff raised objection that the right to use the said space as described in the Schedule 3A at the time of the subsequent sale by Purnima Choudhury and others is not transferred to the defendants.

4. The defendant-appellant No.1 is the full blood brother of the respondent whereas the defendant-appellant No.2 is the wife of the defendant-appellant No.1. Because of the relation the plaintiff-respondent did not obstruct or object to the use of the space as described in the Schedule-3A by the defendant-appellant for purpose of their passage. According to the plaintiff-respondent, taking advantage of this relation the defendant-appellants are not only using the land described Schedule-3A but also encroaching the land of Schedule-3B occasionally by passing and turning their vehicle and sometimes even they park their vehicle in the space as described in the Schedule-3A. Thus, they create obstruction in using this passage by the plaintiff. According to the plaintiff, the defendant-appellants do not have any right or title to enjoy the land descri