The appellate court must not overstep its jurisdiction or set aside decrees that are not part of the appeal unless clearly justified; ownership claims must respect established legal boundaries and ownership records.

JUDGMENT

1. Heard Mr. K. Datta, learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as Mr. D. R. Chowdhury, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. S. Sarkar, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. This is an appeal under Section 100 of the CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE against the judgment dated 06-06-2016 and decree passed by Additional District Judge, Court No.5, West Tripura, Agartala in Title Appeal 04 of 2014 arising out of Judgment and decree dated 26.09.2013 passed by Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Court No1, West Tripura, Agartala in case no. TS 125 of 2011.

3. At the outset, the controversy that led to filing of the suit may briefly be introduced. The plaintiff Appellant as Plaintiff instituted the Title Suit No. TS.125 of 2011 in the Court of Ld. Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Court No.1, West Tripura, Agartala against the Defendant - Respondents for confirmation of right title and recovery of possession by evicting the defendants therefrom.

4. In a nutshell the plaintiff's case is that, she purchased two gandas of land from one Shyamal Sengupta on 05.07.2005 by a registered sale deed. Her said purchased land was also mutated in her name. In the month of November 2006 the defendants encroached some portion of purchased land of the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff raised protest, but the defendants forcibly took into their possession of land measuring 0.015 acres which is a part and parcel of the land measuring two gandas. The total land of the plaintiff is described in Schedule A while encroached land measuring 0.15 acres is shown in B, C and D schedule of the plaint by the plaintiff. On the request of plaintiff the local people intervened into the matter, but the defendants asserted that the said land belong to them. Thereafter, the plaintiff as per advise of the neighbouring people approached the Appropriate Authority fordemarcating her purchased land within the knowledge of Shyamal Sengupta from whom the plaintiff purchased the land. In pursuance of the prayer for demarcation, the land of the plaintiff was surveyed on 11.08.2006 in pursuance of the instruction the DCM, Sadar in presence of the owners of the adjacent R.S. Plot Nos. 2295, 2296, 2297 and 2298 and during spot survey it was revealed that the plaintiff was physically possessing land measuring 0.025 acres instead of 0.040 acres. Thereafter, the Survey team measured the adjacent plots and found the owners of R.S. Plot No.2295 and 2296 are possessing the land measuring 0.015 acres of the plaintiff. The aforesaid plots belong to the defendants. The defendant No. 1 and 2 are possessing 0.005 acres of access land. Similarly the defendants No3 and 4 who are owners of Plot No. 297 are possessing 0.059 acres of land instead of the recorded land in excess of 0.05 acres, so the defendants are also possessing 0.015 acres of access land.

5. The appellant filed the suit in the trial court for recovering of possession of the following schedules.

Schedule-A

Within District- West Tripura, Sub-Division, Sadar, Pargana, Agartala, Sub-Registry- Sadar P.S. - East Agartala, Tehsil - Indranagar, Mouja - Kunjaban, land measuring 0.04 acres, recorded under Khatian No. 2274, C.S. Plot No. 1340 - 3850 and C.s. Plot No. 2317. Being butted and bounded by:-

North- At present Chameli Singh and Kamaljit Singh;

South - At present Quarter;

East - At present Kaizar Debbarma;

West - At present Kamljit Singha, Smt. Chameli Singha, Sri Jyotirmoy Paul, Champa Paul & Samir Kanti Datta;

Within this boundary land measuring 0.04 acres i.e. 2 (two) gandas, Viti Class of land.

Schedule -B

Land measuring .005 acres and recorded under Plot No. 2295 and 2296, butted and bounded by:-

North- Presently Kamalj