Civil courts can adjudicate on title and possession of land even if revenue proceedings are pending, as established in relevant case law.

JUDGMENT :

BISWAJIT PALIT, J.

This appeal under Section 100 of CPC is preferred challenging the judgment dated 31.03.2023 and consequential decree dated 01.04.2023 delivered by Learned District Judge, South Tripura, Belonia in connection with case No.TA No.17 of 2019. By the said judgment and decree, Learned 1st Appellate Court has upheld the judgment dated 31.07.2019 and decree dated 06.08.2019 delivered by Learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), South Tripura, Belonia in connection with case No.TS No.44 of 2015.

2. Heard Learned Counsel Mr. Dilip Kumar Daschowdhury appearing on behalf of the appellant-defendant and also heard Learned Counsel, Mr. Alik Das along with Learned Counsel, Mr. Ashutosh De appearing on behalf of the contesting respondent-plaintiffs.

3. Before proceeding with the merit of the appeal let us discuss about the subject matter of the dispute amongst the rival parties. The predecessor of the respondents as plaintiffs filed one suit before the Court of Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), South Tripura, Belonia which was numbered as TS No.44 of 2015 against the defendant i.e. the present appellant herein for declaration of right, title and interest and also for recovery of possession. It was alleged in the plaint that in the year 1990 vide allotment order No.182 dated 30.12.1990, the respondent-plaintiffs were given allotment by the Government for the land measuring 2.63 acres and the plaintiffs possessed the same without any hindrances and interruption. It was further asserted that during the revisional survey and settlement operation, the names of the respondent-plaintiffs were duly recorded in the finally published khatian but on 01.06.2015 the defendant i.e. the appellant herein along with some of the local hooligans entered into the suit land of the respondent-plaintiffs and planted some cashew nut trees therein. As both the respondent-plaintiffs are old aged persons with a physically handicapped son so they failed to resist the defendantappellant. In this regard, various communications were made to the District Magistrate & Collector for protecting their person and property but no response was taken. Hence the respondent-plaintiffs have filed the suit for declaration of right, title and interest and for recovery of possession.

4. The present appellant as defendant contested the suit by filing written statement denying the entire claim of the respondent-plaintiff rather the appellant-defendant took the plea that the respondent-plaintiffs never possessed the suit land and the defendant was possessing the suit land since 1980. It was further submitted that later on the appellant-defendant could know that the suit land was allotted in the name of respondent-plaintiffs behind his back and being requested by the respondent-plaintiffs, he allowed the respondent-plaintiffs to reside in some portion of the land measuring 0.10 acres and the remaining portion of land remained under the possession of the appellant-defendant. It was further submitted that knowing the fact of allotment of land in favour of the respondentplaintiffs, the appellant-defendant made a prayer before SDM, Belonia for cancellation of allotment granted in favour of the respondentplaintiffs and on the basis of his prayer, RI of Rajnagar circle and DCM, Rajnagar verified the land and submitted report to the SDM, Belonia. The appellant-defendant also took the plea that the suit land was all along under his possession and in the year 2004 he planted cashew nuts and rubber plants therein. Hence by the written statement, the appellant-defendant has prayed for dismissal of the suit with cost.

5. Upon the pleading of the parties, following issues wereframed by the Learned Trial Court below:

ISSUES
i) Whether the suit is maintainable in its presentform?
ii) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to a decree declaring their right, title and interest over the suit land as specified in the schedule of theplaint?
iii) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to a decree of