MAKHANBALA CHAKRABORTY Vs. PRANAB KANTI BASU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGAINST the concurrent finding of fact that the entire suit land is under adverse possession of the plaintiffs, the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein, beyond the period of prescription, this appeal filed under Section 100 of the C.P.C. has questioned the legality of the judgment and decree dated 21.01.2008 delivered in Title Appeal No. 20 of 2003 by the Additional District Judge, West Tripura, Agartala, Court No. 4 which affirmed the judgment and decree dated 05.06.2003 delivered in Title Suit No. 74 of 2002 by the Civil Judge, Jr. Division, Court No. 1, Agartala, West Tripura.

(2.) WHILE admitting the appeal on 05.12.2008 the following substantial question of law was formulated:

(3.) THE respondents instituted a suit for declaration of title by adverse possession, confirmation of possession and perpetual injunction in respect of the suit land described in Schedule -A and Schedule -B of the plaint comprised in Mouza -Agartala town sheet No. 19, Khatian No. 6043, C.S. Plot Nos. 16488 & 16489. In the plaint, the respondents have stated that the defendants, the appellants herein, had been illegally possessing the land comprised in Dag No. 16484, owned by the predecessors in interest of the plaintiffs. Subsequently in the record of right, the possession of the said plot has been shown in the name of the defendants in exchange of Dag No. 16489 described in the Schedule -B of the plaint. Similarly the said land described in the Schedule -B comprised in C.S. Plot No. 16489 has been shown in the possession of the plaintiffs in exchange of Dag No. 16484. It has been asserted categorically that the plaintiffs were in the illegal possession of the suit land from the year 1953 continuously, adversely and openly. The defendants and their predecessor in interests initially tried to evict the plaintiffs from the suit land even by applying force and sometime illegally changing the record of rights. When the defendants realised that they would not succeed to disposes the plaintiffs from the suit land, they relented. The predecessor of interests of the plaintiffs got possession of suit land in the year 1953 on the day of execution of the title deed from his predecessor, namely Asrab Ali and four others. Prior to that, the suit land was in the illegal possession of the said vendors. In the finally published Khatian No. 6043 the name of the defendants were shown as the rayat but the father of the plaintiffs had been shown in illegal possession since 1362 B.S. corresponding to 1955 though it should have been 1953. The plaintiffs have pleaded that the possession of the suit land is adequate, in continuity, in well publicity and in extent. The possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land being overt without attempt of concealment and hostile denying the title of the true owner, they are entitled to get the declaration and the consequential reliefs.