A suit for recovery of possession is maintainable if filed within twelve years, and claims of res judicata require substantial evidence of previous identical disputes which were not demonstrated.

JUDGMENT

1. Heard Mr. Raju Datta, learned counsel appearing for the appellants. None appears for the respondents despite repeated calls.

2. This second appeal has been preferred by the original defendants against the judgment and decree dated 04.02.2019 passed by learned District Judge, North Tripura Judicial District, Dharmanagar in connection with Title Appeal No.10 of 2013, wherein the learned first Appellate Court had confirmed and upheld the judgment dated 24.04.2013 and decree dated 06.05.2013 passed by the learned Civil Judge(Junior Division), Dharmanagar, North Tripura District in Title Suit No.21 of 2001.

3. By way of instituting the present suit, the plaintiffs, i.e. the present respondents, had prayed for granting declaration of right, title and interest of the plaintiff in the suit land scheduled below and directing that the plaintiffs doth recover possession thereof by evicting the defendants therefrom and by demolition and removal of all obstructions created therein including any feature wall, etc. and directing further that the plaintiffs doth recover from the defendants, the cost of such removal and demolition of obstructions.

4. The facts of the case as projected by the learned first Appellate Court may be reproduced here-in-below:

'4. The brief fact of the case of the Respondent /Plaintiff before the Ld. Court below in TS-21/2001was that the lands of registered Kabala (sale deeds) dated 10-05-1961, 10-05-1961, 12-05-1961 and 06-06-1961 was owned and possessed by the plaintiff by way of purchase and the same was recorded in the khatiyan in her name. That the plaintiff has / had pucca building within aforesaid purchased land having its windows on the east walls. That, on and from 28-08-1984 the defendant illegally dispossessed the plaintiff from some portion of the aforesaid purchased land and prepared to raise pucca wall therein. Then, the plaintiff sued the defendant by filling suit bearing No. TS. 20/1984 praying recovery of possession on removable of obstruction and declaration of title to the land dispossessed. The suit was decreed in favor of the plaintiff with a direction to break down and remove the wall portion. The defendant then preferred an appeal bearing No. TA-8/1989 against the decree of TS- 20/1984 and it was dismissed with some modification in favor of the plaintiff /respondent and then the defendant again preferred second appeal before the Honorable High Court vide SA-11/1990 wherein the decision of the 1st Appellate court was confirmed. Thereafter, vide Execution case bearing No. Ext.(T)7/ 1990, the plaintiff secured recovery of possession of the decrial land of TS-20/1984 on 15-07-2001 through survey knowing man.

5. That, during pendency of the aforesaid suit bearing no. TS-20/1984 of the plaintiff, the defendant extended his wall from 36 feet to 43 feet in length running south-north and thereby encroached to the land i. e., suit land of the plaintiff illegally. The suit land of the plaintiff situates at contiguous south of the decreed land of suit bearing No.TS-20/1984 and the suit land and the decreed land of TS-20/1984 are collinear with small curvature running north-south, and on the contiguous east of the suit land and the decreed land of TS-20/1984 situates the land of defendant as of the homestead having its separate plot number.

6. On the other hand, the case of the defendant (present appellant) before the Ld. Court below was that the plaintiff has no right, title and interest and possession over the present suit land. Rather, defendant owns and has been possessed the suit land since January, 1930 within the knowledge of the plaintiff and w