A purchaser's established possession must be protected unless evicted legally, even if mapping errors exist, highlighting the integrity of possession against administrative mistakes.

JUDGMENT :

S. DATTA PURKAYASTHA, J.

1. The appeal arises out of the judgment dated 16.09.2023 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, North Tripura, Dharmanagar in Title Appeal No.28 of 2016 by dismissing the appeal.

2 The appellant (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff) instituted Title Suit No.24 of 2014 in the Court of the Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Dharmanagar against the respondents (hereinafter referred to as the defendants) praying for a perpetual injunction for restraining the defendants, their men and agents from entering into the suit land and from disturbing the possession of the plaintiff therein in respect of the land measuring 0.04 acres of Class-Nal recorded in the Khatian No.743 of Mouja-Panisagar falling within R.S. Plot No.1331, corresponding to old CS Plot No.531/1008(P) with the following boundaries:

North : Self (plaintiff)

South : Foot track of village.

East : Biresh Das known as Biresh Sen

West : Assam-Agartala Road

3. The claim of the plaintiff is that she purchased the suit land from one Smt. Basana Rani Nath and others vide registered sale Deed No.1-3033 dated 15.12.2007 [Exbt.1 series] and since purchase she has been possessing the suit land peacefully. Khatian has also been mutated in her name. But on 15.05.2014, in the morning, the defendants threatened her not to cultivate the suit land and that they would cultivate the same after taking possession thereof. Similar incident, according to the plaintiff, occurred again on 26.05.2014 and therefore, she instituted the suit to protect her possession.

4. The defendants contested the suit and according to them, the plaintiff did not purchase the suit land from Basana Rani Nath by above said sale deed. According to them, the suit land is not identifiable, for, in the trace map RS Plot No.1333 is situated at the adjacent North of suit plot as per Khatian but as per trace map, RS plot No.9823 is situated at the adjacent North. They also contended that the purchased plot of the plaintiff bearing R.S. Plot No.1331 as per the map was situated far away from plot No.1330 and 1332 keeping so many plots existent in between without any basis, which further creates doubt about correctness of location of these plots in the trace map. It is also stated that the suit land was ancestral property of the defendants along with the co-sharers and they have been jointly possessing the suit land with other lands without any interruption from any corner. Their predecessor sold out 0.21 acres of land to one Bimal Sen which is situated adjacent eastern boundary of the suit land appertaining to plot No.9300. Accordingly, the land measuring 0.10 acres including the suit land which is situated adjacent west to the land of said Bimal Sen is still recorded in the name of the predecessor of the defendants.

5. It is also contended by the defendants that the vendor of plaintiff has no right, title and possession in the land wrongly shown in the trace map as against plot No.1331. In this regard, the defendants have also submitted a petition to the SDM, Panisagar for correction of trace map which is still pending.

6. During trial, the plaintiff examined herself as PW-1 and also examined other 2[two] witnesses, namely Sri Arabinda Debnath and Sri Anathbandhu Das as PW-2 and PW-3 respectively and also proved few documents into the evidence, such as, her title deed, Khatian No.743 and certified copy of trace map.

7. The defendant No.1, Sri Bikash Ranjan Dutta examined himself as DW-1 and other two witnesses, namely Sri Dayamay Datta and Sri Manna Dey as DW-2 and DW-3 respectively. He also proved the copy of h