The principle of res judicata applies where previous judgments on the same issue bind parties, regardless of claims involving part of the land. Judicial findings must reflect conscious application to relevant issues.

1. The appeal arises from the judgment dated 18.12.2023 passed by the learned District Judge, North Tripura, Dharmanagar in Title Appeal No.20 of 2022 and related decree thereof. By said judgment, learned First Appellate Court affirmed the judgment dated 01.08.2022 of the learned Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Court No.2, North Tripura, Dharmanagar in Title Suit No.30 of 2017, whereby the right, title and interest of the plaintiff (the respondent herein) in the suit land was declared and prayer for recovery of possession of a part thereof, described in the 'B' schedule of the plaint was granted.

2. The appellants (the defendants of the original suit) being aggrieved by the concurrent findings of both the learned courts below have preferred this appeal.

3. The plaintiff, a Society, called the Satsang, institutes the suit with the averments that they became the owner of 0.15 acres of land of CS Plot No.2269 and 2265 (P) [described in the schedule of the plaint] by way of registered gift deed executed by one Thakurmani Debnath vide deed of gift No.1-2504 dated 22.04.1976 [Exbt.2]. According to them, said Thakurmani Debnath, purchased 0.15 acres of land by a registered deed No.1-7030 dated 11.11.1970 [Exbt.C] from one Nalini Mohan Das and further 0.08 acres of land from Nirendra Ch. Debnath [the predecessor of the defendants] vide sale deed No. 1-6942 dated 02.11.1970 [Exbt.D] and became the owner in possession of total 0.23 acres of land and out of the said property, he gifted 0.15 acres of land to the plaintiff, but, on 18.12.2005 suddenly the defendants illegally occupied a portion of the said land by raising fence and therefore, the prayer for recovery of possession has been made.

4. According to the plaintiff, in the year 1997, the defendants filed a suit bearing No.T.S.26 of 1997 against them claiming right, title and interest in the suit land and recovery of possession and the said suit was partly decreed and partly dismissed by Ld. Trial Court. Against the said judgment and decree, the appeal bearing No.T.A.18 of 2005 was preferred and the learned first appellate court dismissed the entire suit with the findings that the plaintiff had right, title and interest in the entire suit land. Thereafter, the said judgment and decree were not challenged by the defendants in the higher forum making it binding on them.

5. The defendants in their written statement have challenged the ownership of the plaintiff in the entire suit land. According to them, one Nagendra Chandra Debnath and another Nirendra Chandra Debnath [the predecessors of the present defendants] were the owners in possession of total land area 0.45 acres of C.S. Plot No.2265 [0.30 acres], C.S. Plot No.2266 [0.10 acres] and C.S Plot 2269 [0.05 acres] of Mouja - Panisagar having 50% share each therein. Said Nagendra Chandra Debnath sold out 0.19 acres of land vide registered deed No.1-6841 dated 08.12.1967 [Exbt.A] to one Nalini Mohan Das and said Nalini Mohan Das, again sold out 0.17 acres of land therefrom to their predecessor Nirendra Ch. Debnath vide sale deed No.1-7233 dated 10.10.1968 [Exbt.B] and thereafter he again sold out 0.15 acres of land to Thakurmani Debnath vide sale deed No.1-7030 dated 11.11.1970 [Exbt.C] though he had only transferable interest of 0.02 acres of land therein after his such transfer of said 0.17 acres of land to Nirendra Ch. Debnath. They also stated that said Nirendra Ch. Debnath sold out 0.08 acres of land to Thakurmani Debnath vide registered deed No.1-6942 dated 02.11.1970 [Exbt.D] and thereafter, said Thakurmani Debnath transferred 0.15 acres of land to Satsang as claimed by th