The court affirmed the principle that established boundaries take precedence over conflicting land titles, and concurrent factual findings by lower courts are upheld unless proven manifestly erroneous.

JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL)

Arindam Lodh, J. - This is a second appeal filed by the appellants, the defendants in the original suit, under Section 100 of the CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE ,1908 [for short, the 'CPC'] against the Judgment and Decree dated 06.12.2021, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Court No.2, West Tripura, Agartala in connection with Case No. TA 23/2018, whereby and whereunder the learned first appellate court had upheld and affirmed the judgment & decree dated 08.05.2018, passed by learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Court No.7, Agartala, West Tripura in connection with Case No. T.S. 47 of 2016.

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

'Brief facts leading to this appeal is that father of the plaintiff namely, Lalmohan Saha (now deceased) having record-of-right vide Khatian No.1322 in his favour was the owner in possession of the suit land. The father of plaintiff died on 17.08.1991 leaving behind the plaintiff and his mother Smt. Parul Bala Saha who also expired on 18.06.2009. On the death of his father the plaintiff and his mother applied for having mutation of the suit land in their favour and accordingly record of right was prepared jointly in the name of plaintiff and his mother. According to the plaintiff his father had been possessing the suit land by planting various fruit bearing trees thereon and after the death of his parents he was in possession of the suit land till 22.01.2014. On that day, i.e., on 22.01.2014 in the morning the plaintiff while paid a visit to the suit land found that the defendants had encroached the suit land taking over the possession denying his (plaintiff) right, title and interest thereon and constructed a small mud wall hut there-over. The plaintiff, therefore, stated to have made request to the defendants to vacate the suit land but refusal on the part of the defendants led the plaintiff to approach the trial court seeking declaration of his title along with other reliefs including consequential relief for recovery of possession. The plaintiff further added that during life time of his mother he along with his mother jointly had filed an application u/s 145 of Cr.P.C. with the SDM, Mohanpur vide Case No.03 of 2009 whereby SDM, Mohanpour vide his order dated 08.12.2015 has held the defendants as unauthorized occupiers of the suit land.'

3. At the time of trial, after exchange of pleadings, learned trial Court had framed the following issues:

I. Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form and nature?

II. Whether the plaintiff has cause of action to institute the suit?

III. Whether the plaintiff has right, title and interest over the suit land?

IV. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of khash possession of the suit land by evicting the defendants there from through by way of removing all obstructions therein?

V. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get a decree as prayed for?

VI. Whether the defendants have been owning and possessing the suit land along with other co-sharers being lawful owners and bona fide possessors since long as per respective date of purchasing their land?

VII. To what other relief/reliefs parties are entitled?

4. Thereafter, evidences were adduced by both the parties and relevant documents had been brought on record being exhibited in accordance with law. On completion of recording evidence, the learned trial Judge having heard the ar