This is an appeal under Section 100 of the CPC from the judgment dated 27.07.2015 delivered in Title Appeal No. 43 of 2013 by the District Judge, West Tripura, Agartala.

2. By the said judgment dated 27.07.2015, the judgment dated 05.04.2013 delivered in Title Suit 129 of 2005 by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Court No.2, Agartala, West Tripura (hereinafter referred to as the trial court) has been affirmed and consequently, the first appeal has been dismissed. By the said judgment dated 05.04.2013, the suit instituted by the appellant has been dismissed.

3. At the time of admitting this appeal, the following substantial question of law was framed by the order dated 04.02.2016 :

“Whether the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and affirmed by the appellate Court suffer from perversity for non appreciation/mis-appreciation of the pleadings and evidence on record ?”

The appellant was strangely given liberty to raise any other substantial question of law at the time of hearing. But Mr. Mahajan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant did not press any other substantial question of law for purpose of challenging the impugned judgment dated 27.07.2015.

4. The relevant fact is required to be introduced at the outset to appreciate the challenge. The appellant instituted the suit for cancellation of the sale deed No.1-5563 dated 25.05.2007 executed by the defendant No.1 (Exbt.A). The plaintiff is the widow of the original defendant No.1 namely Ramjoy Saha, now deceased. In their wedlock, a female child was borne to them. For some irreconcilable disputes between the plaintiff and the original defendant No.1, the marital relation got seriously jeopardised. In the plaint, it has been alleged that the original defendant No.1 had developed illicit relation with another lady and started a reckless life. The plaintiff on 08.04.2007 found them in a compromising position. The original defendant No.1 in the wake of that incident left the house. The mother in law of the plaintiff came forward to restitute their marital life. In a conciliation meeting, it was decided that the shop premises measuring 0.002 acre will be handed over to the plaintiff and accordingly, one agreement dated 15.04.2017 was entered into, by the original defendant No.1. Having got the information from the reliable source on 24.04.2007 that the original defendant No.1 was going to transfer the suit land, the plaintiff rushed to the registry office along with her mother in law and filed the objection against the sale of the suit land. The apprehension came true when the sale deed was presented in the office of the District Sub-registrar on receiving the consideration money of Rs.60,000/- on 25.05.2007, but the District Sub-registrar on the face of the said objection had kept the registration pending and fixed a date for hearing on the objection. At the intervention of the local club, a meeting was convened on 25.06.2007. In the said meeting, it was settled, according to the plaintiff, that the suit premises will be with the appellant and the original respondent No.1 will not transfer the suit land to the defendant No.2 in future. The defendant No.2 will not purchase the suit land. The earnest money of Rs.20,000/- along with expenditure for preparation of the sale deed of Rs.15,000/- had to be paid back to the defendant No.2. Accordingly, those terms was reduced in writing in the form of agreement. But the defendant No.2 on 12.09.2007 came to the suit land and demanded the vacant possession of the suit land showing the sale deed dated 25.05.2007. But the plaintiff resisted him and denied to put him in the possession.

5. On apprehension of dispossession, the plaintiff filed the suit and urged for cancellation of the said sale deed by declaring that the disputed instrument is illegal and void ab-initio. The plaintiff has also urged for perpetual injunction from disturbing and interfering with the possession of the land described in the plaint as ‘the