RANJIT KUMAR SARKAR Vs. HIRALAL SARKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this revision petition, challenge is to the order dated 26th August, 2011 in Title Suit No. 01/1991 passed by the learned Civil Judge, (Jr. Div.) Sabroom, South Tripura wherein the learned Civil Judge had given opportunity to the DW 2 to depose on the additional issue framed and rejected the petition filed by the petitioners under Order 18, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, "Code") praying for rejecting the examination -in -chief of DW 2 as additional evidence.

(2.) HEARD Mr. D. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the plaintiff -petitioners as well as Mr. S.M. Chakraborty, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. S Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing for the defendant -respondents.

(3.) THE defendant -respondents contested the suit by way of filing written statement jointly wherein they have stated, inter alia, that they (defendants) have possessed the suit land continuously since 1st January, 1975 AD after ousting the plaintiff from the suit land. They have possessed the suit land openly, adversely and independently by constructing a kitchen measuring 7X5 cubits and other structures for latrine and urinal. The defendant -respondent No.4, namely, Narayan Sarkar has been using the said kitchen, latrine and urinal which are standing on the eastern part of the suit land. The defendant - respondents have planted and grown coconut, bettle nut trees and banana, pine apple plant on the part of the suit land and have been enjoying the fruits of those trees jointly. They have been utilizing the vacant space of the suit land by growing vegetables, potato as winter crops and growing paddy seedling in about -3 kanis of suit land. They are also growing Aush paddy in 1 kani of the suit land and have been enjoying usufructs thereof within the knowledge of the predecessor of the plaintiff -petitioners and other local people. According to the respondent -defendants, the right, title and interest of the plaintiff on the suit land was extinguished under Section 27 of the Limitation Act since the predecessor of the plaintiff -petitioners was forcibly ousted by the defendant -respondent and thus they have acquired the right, title and interest of the suit land by such continuous adverse possession for more than 12 years.