The courts affirmed the principle that a legitimate title and prior possession override claims of permissive possession, in the absence of contrary evidence.

JUDGMENT

T. Amarnath Goud, J. - Heard Mr. D. Deb, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. Also heard Mr. S. Lodh, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

2. This second appeal has been filed under Section-100 of the CPC against the judgment and decree dated 19.09.2019, decree signed on 20.09.2019 by the learned District Judge, Unakoti Tripura, Kailashahar, in connection with T.A. No. 03 of 2018, dismissing the appeal affirming the judgment dated 28.02.2018 and decree dated 09.03.2018 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) Court No. 1, Unakoti Tripura, Kailashahar in connection with case No. T.S. 09 of 2016 declaring the right, title & interest of the plaintiff over the suit land and recovery of possession of the suit land.

3. This appeal has been preferred against the concurrent findings of two Courts below. At the time of admitting the appeal, the following substantial questions of law were formulated by this Court:

'1. Whether the allotment order issued by the Collector in favour of the respondent-plaintiff contraband sub-rule 7 of the Rule-15 of the Allotment Rules, 1962, as amended on 1982?

2. Any other substantial question of law shall be considered at the time of hearing?

4. The fact of the case in brief is that the defendant-appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment and decree dated 19.09.2019 passed by the learned District Judge, District Unakoti Tripura in Case No. T.A. 03 OF 2018 directed against the judgment and decree dated 28.02.2018 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division Court No. 1, Kailashahar, Unakoti Tripura in case No. T.S. 09 of 2016. The original one Karibun Nessa wife of Rahamat Ullah as plaintiff filed the suit vide No. T.S. 09 of 2016 in the Court of learned Civil Judge, Kailashahar, Unakoti, Tripura against the defendant-appellant herein for declaration of her right, title and interest over the suit land described in the schedule of the plaint and for recovery of possession of the said land by evicting the defendant-appellant by removing all obstructions. The said suit was decreed by the learned trial court in favour of Karibun Nessa and the defendant appellant preferred appeal vide No. T.A. No. 03 of 2018 being dismissed by the First Appellate Court.

5. After dismissal of the appeal vide No. T.A. 03 OF 2018, the defendant-appellant has got information that the sole plaintiff Karibun Nessa died on 14.08.2019 leaving behind her husband, two sons and four daughters who being the legal heirs of the sole plaintiff have been impleaded in the present second appeal as plaintiff-respondents No. 1 to 7 respectively.

6. The suit land was originally government khas land. The predecessor of the plaintiff-respondents being in possession applied for allotment and accordingly, the suit land was allotted in favour of the predecessor of the plaintiff respondents by allotment order No. 335, dated 30.07.1983. The predecessor of the plaintiff respondents was in possession of the suit land by construction of house and planting trees and developed the suit land. The defendant-appellant being the brother of the predecessor of the plaintiff-respondents being in difficulties approached the predecessor of the plaintiff respondents for permission to use the construction over the suit land for temporary period and accordingly, the predecessor of the plaintiff-respondents allowed him on condition to vacate the said land as and when the same will be required.

7. Accordingly, the defendant-appellant without having any right