A plaintiff must establish their own ownership in a suit for title and possession, as entries in revenue records do not confer title.

JUDGMENT

1. This is an appeal under Section 100 read with Order XXII Rule 1 read with order XLI Rule 1 of the CPC against the judgment dated 09.02.2018 and Decree passed on 20.02.2018 in Title Appeal No.18 of 2012 by the Learned District Judge, North Tripura, Dharmanagar upholding the Judgment dated 28.06.2012 and Decree the dated 02.07.2012 passed in Title Suit No.24 of 2006 passed by the Civil Judge, Jr. Division, Dharmanagar, North Tripura dismissing the suit of the appellant.

2. For the sake of brevity the parties are referred to as in the title suit. The brief fact of the plaintiff's case is that the plaintiff is the owner and possessor of the landed property measuring about 12 sataks under Khatian No.113 pertaining to present C/S plot No.400 under Mouja and T.K-Ramnagar, Dharmanagar as described in the schedule of the plaint as the plaintiff purchased the aforesaid landed property from one Chaturi Singh through registered sale deed No.1-1848 dated 12.07.05 and since then he has been possessing the said land. It is also mentioned in the plaint that the said landed property was in the possession of Bipin Chandra Das being the permissive possessor under the said Chaturi Singh and one Ruhini Singh against monthly tenant of Rs.50/- for starting a business. It is also pertinent to mention that Chaturi Singh (pro-defendant No.1) of the suit is the owner and possessor of the property measuring about 0.62 acre under khatian No.113 Hal khatian No.105 along with her co-owner Ruhini Singh and the said Ruhini Singh died long back leaving his only son namely Chitta Singh (pro-defendant No.2). Thereafter pro-defendant No.2 left the place since long and the suit land along with other portion of the land came under the absolute ownership of Chaturi Singh and as per the mutual settlement between Chaturi Singh, Ruhini Singh and Chitta Singh, Chaturi Singh became the owner and possessor of the landed property and being the owner he sold out the suit land to the plaintiff. The defendant No.1 on 15.04.1997 took lease of the hut against Rs.100/- from said Chaturi Singh and has been staying there with a condition that he would vacate the said land measuring 12 sataks as and when asked. The plaintiff purchased the land measuring 12 sataks from Chaturi Singh through the registered deed and within the knowledge of the defendant and became the owner and possessor of the landed property against valuable consideration and thereafter the plaintiff applied for mutation but due to non-availability of ROR which has been send to Agartala for computerization, the petition for mutation is pending for disposal. On 01.08.05 the plaintiff requested the defendants to vacant the premises under the possession but the defendant refused to vacant the same and told the plaintiff that he may move before the Court if he so desires. The defendant also told to the plaintiff that he will not pay anything against this possession as earlier because he does not take the plaintiff as owner so the plaintiff finding no other alternative means filed the present case with a prayer for granting decree for declaration that the plaintiff have right, title and interest over the suit land described in the schedule of the plaint for recovery of khas possession of the suit land by evicting the defendants from the suit land by removing all the obstacles created by the defendant if any and also along with the costs of the suit.

3. On the other hand, the defendants contested the suit by filing a written statement denying all the allegations of the plaintiff in the plaint and also stating inter alia that the proforma defendant No.5 was the owner and possessor of the land