The khatian serves as a presumptive document of ownership, requiring rebuttal evidence for challenges, while past admissions regarding possession impact recovery claims.

JUDGMENT

1. It appears that at the time of admission of the instant appeal, substantial question of law has not been formulated. As such, as proposed by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the following substantial question of law has been formulated:

'Whether non-appreciation of the evidences surfaced on record that the plaintiff based on entry in the Khatian no. 15007 as permissive possessor of the defendant filed a proceeding under Section 95 vide 141/2008 of the TLR & LR Act for correction of the wrong entry, admitting that there is no permissive possessor, and he is possessing the suit land without any difficulty, and instantly filed the suit being T.S. 65 of 2011 for recovery of possession on the basis of wrong entry as the defendant is permissive possessor so evictable, attracts estoppels for the plaintiffs, thus, judgment of the appellate court is perverse?'

2. Heard Mr. GS Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as Mr. A. De, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

3. This is a second appeal preferred by the defendant-appellant against the judgment and decree dated 19.03.2019 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Court no. 2, West Tripura, Agartala in case No. Title Appeal 11 of 2013 whereby and whereunder the judgment and decree dated 05.01.2013 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Court no.1, Agartala, West Tripura in case no. Title Suit 65 of 2011 had been affirmed.

4. Briefly stated, the plaintiffs, the respondents herein, had instituted a suit for declaration of right, title, interest and recovery of possession of the suit land against the defendant, the appellant herein, alleging that though they are the owners of the suit land, but, the defendant had been possessing the suit land and in the Record of Right (khatian) the name of defendant has been shown as permissive possessor over 'B' schedule land, which is the part of schedule 'A' land mentioned in the plaint. The order passed by the learned trial court may be reproduced here-in-below:-

'In the result, the suit of the plaintiffs is decreed on contest with cost with a declaration that the plaintiffs have right, title and interest over the suit land described in schedule-A of the plaint except the land of Hal Dag no. 1287, 1289 and 1293 and the plaintiffs are also entitled to get recovery of possession of the suit land described in schedule-B of the plaint by evicting the defendant and by removing all obstruction therefrom on condition that the plaintiffs have to pay the deficient court fees of Rs. 750/- before the executing court to make the judgment and decree enforceable in law. Accordingly, irrespective of payment of court fees by the plaintiffs, the defendant is directed to handover the vacant possession of the suit land described in schedule-B of the plaint to the plaintiffs within 60 (sixty) days from today. The suit is disposed of on contest with cost. Make necessary entry in the relevant Trial Register.'

5. Against the said decree, the defendant has preferred first appeal before the learned District Judge, West Tripura, Agartala. The matter was transferred to the court of learned Additional District Judge, Court no.2, West Tripura, Agartala. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and after perusal of the evidences and materials on record, the learned Additional District Judge dismissed the appeal with certain observations. Being aggrieved, the defendant has preferred the instant second appeal.

6. Mr. GS Bhattacharjee, learned counsel for the defendant-appellant has confined his submission within the substantial question of law as formulated here-in-above. One very