The court affirmed that the defendants established adverse possession against the plaintiffs, which warrants dismissal of the plaintiffs' appeal for lack of substantial legal questions.

1. This second appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff - appellants (here - in - after referred to as the plaintiffs) challenging the judgment and decree dated 06.08.2019 passed by the learned District Judge, North Tripura, Dharmanagar in Title Appeal no. 24 of 2018 reversing the judgment and decree dated 17.07.2018 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Dharmanagar, North Tripura in Title Suit no. 18 of 2016, decreeing the suit in favour of the plaintiffs.

2. At the time of admission of the appeal, after hearing Mr. KN Bhattacharjee, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. R. Debbarma, learned counsel and on perusal of the judgments therein, I find no material to formulate substantial questions of law. As such, I have taken up the matter for disposal since, according to me, the present appeal involves only question of facts.

3. Briefly stated, the plaintiffs have instituted the Title suit No. 18 of 2016 against the respondent - defendants (here - in - after referred to as the defendants) including the proforma - defendant seeking declaration of recovery of possession, inter alia, stating that the plaintiff no.3, Braja Mohan Nath along with his brother late Rajmohan Nath, predecessors - in - interest of plaintiff nos.1 and 2 respectively, namely, Smt. Dipali Nath and Sri Ranjit Nath and proforma defendant no.7, Sri Ranadhir Nath purchased the suit land from the owners Sunil Kanti Nath and Sudip Kanti Nath vide registered Sale Deed no. 1-1372 dated 16.04.1999 and Sale Deed no. 1-1371 dated 16.04.1999 and became the owners and possessors of the suit land. Subsequently, after being noticed that RS plot numbers were wrongly mentioned, the same was corrected. It is the further case of the plaintiffs that on 06.07.2016 they were dispossessed by the defendants from the suit land and levelled some false allegations that there was proposal by the defendants for purchasing the suit land.

4. The defendants have contested the suit by filing written statement where they have taken the plea that they have been possessing the suit land since 15th September, 1980 infront of the eyes of the original owners of the land forcefully and within their knowledge as well as the people at large. They have stated that their possession has been continuous without any interruption and by elapse of time and being possessing the land beyond the statutory period, they have acquired right, title and interest adversely against the plaintiffs.

5. The defendant, namely, "Padmapur Club" is represented by its Secretary, Sri Tapan Nath Choudhury @ Tutan, and other members of the club, namely, Sri Surajit Adhikari, Sri Matilal Debnath, Sri Prabhata Nath and Sri Prasenjit Nath. Sri Ranadhir Nath being the son of late Rajmohan Nath has been made as proforma - defendant no.7.

6. The learned trial Court has framed issues. The plaintiffs have adduced evidence and also introduced some documents in support of their case. The defendants also have adduced evidence by producing six witnesses. They also have introduced two documents, namely, (i) copy of application under S.95 of the TLR and LR Act duly received by the office of the District Magistrate and Collector, North Tripura, Dharmanagar as Exhibit - A and, (ii) certificate of registration of Padmapur Club as Exhibit - B.

7. After completion of recording of evidence, having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the learned trial Court has held that the defendants have failed to establish their plea that their possession was not animus to the plaintiffs. Accordingly, decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs by way of passing the order that "the defendants to do put the plaintiffs and profo