TRHC010018012023

2026:THC:1058

HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA

AGARTALA

RSA No.40 of 2023

1. Smt. Horo Priya Sarkar,

W/O- Late Rebati Mohan Sarkar

2. Shri Nihar Sarkar, Age - 42 years

S/O- Late Rebati Mohan Sarkar

3. Shri Nishit Sarkar, Age – 40 years

S/O- Late Rebati Mohan Sarkar

4. Smt. Bhakti Lata Sarkar(Roy) , Age – 37 years

D/O- Late Rebati Mohan Sarkar

5. Smt. Bondona Sarkar(Bhowmik) , Age – 35 years

D/O- Late Rebati Mohan Sarkar

All are resident of - Chailengta, Police Station - Chailengta,

District- Dhalai, Tripura

…. Appellants

Versus

1. Smt. Kanchana Sarkar ,

W/O-Late Parimal Sarkar

2. Mr. Tanuj Sarkar,

S/O-Late Parimal Sarkar

3. Mr. Anup Sarkar,

S/O-Late Parimal Sarkar

4. Mr. Manuj Sarkar,

S/O-Late Parimal Sarkar

5. Mr. Utpal Sarkar,

S/O-Late Parimal Sarkar

All are resident of Chailengta Bazar Para, PS- Chailengta,

District- Dhalai, Tripura, PIN- 799273

…. Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ratan Datta, Adv.

Ms. Saswati Nag, Adv.

Ms. Samadrita Debnath, Adv.

For Respondent(s) : Ms. Aradhita Debbarma, Adv.

Date of Hearing : 09.07.2026

Date of delivery of

Judgment and Order : 03.08.2026

Whether fit for

Reporting : YES

Page 2 of 18

HON‟BLE MR. JUSTICE BISWAJIT PALIT

Judgment & Order

This Second Appeal under Section 100 of CPC, 1908

is filed challenging the judgment dated 05.08.2023 and decree

dated 11.08.2023 passed by Learned District Judge, Dhalai

Judicial District, Ambassa in connection with case No.Title

Appeal 02 of 2021. By the said judgment and decree, Learned

First Appellate Court has affirmed the judgment da ted

25.02.2021 and consequential dec ree dated 08.03.2021

passed by Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ambassa,

Dhalai Judicial District , Court No.1 in connection with case

No.Title Suit 06 of 2018 (Renumbered as Title Suit 09 of

2018).

02. Heard Learned Counsel, Mr. Ratan Da tta appearing

for the appellant-plaintiffs and also heard Learned Counsel, Ms.

Aradhita Debbarma appear ing on behalf of the respondent -

defendants.

03. At the time of hearing, by order dated 04.01.2024

the following Substantial Question of law is formulated:-

“(1) Whether the earlier judgment passed by the Learned

First Appellate Court below is perverse? ”

Before proceeding with the merit of the appeal, let

us discuss about the subject matter of the dispute amongst the

rival parties.

04. The brief facts of the case of the appellant-plaintiffs

was in short is that, one Rebati Mohan Sarkar the predecessor

of the appellant-plaintiffs died leaving behind the appellant-

Page 3 of 18

plaintiffs. Said Rebati Mohan Sarkar and P arimal Sarkar –

original defendant are the brothers. The appellant-plaintiffs

used to live with their predecessor by constituting in a single

family.

The respondent-defendant and his family members

are living in separate mess having separate properties. The

land measuring 0.87 acres under R.S. Plot Nos.2047, 2048 and

2049 incorporated in the Khatian No.220/3 was owned and

possessed by the predecessor of the appellant-plaintiffs during

his lifetime and after his death the said land has been under

the ownership of the appellant-plaintiffs having right title and

interest thereto.

In the year 1988, the respondent-defendant sought

permission from the predecessor of the appellant-plaintiffs to

live within the suit land (as mentioned in 1

st

Schedule of the

suit property) on condition to vacate the same as and when

asked for. Thus, according to the appellant -plaintiffs, the

respondent-defendant was nothing but a permissive occupier of

the said property.

The appellant-plaintiffs never asked the respondent-

defendant to vacate the suit land. But the respondent -

defendant started raising unauthorized constructions over the

same. So, the appellant-plaintiffs objected the same but that

was not adhered by the respondent-defendant. After that, one

Advocate’s notice was sent to the defendant to vacate the suit

land but the respondent-defendant denied vacating the same

Page 4 of 18

and by another Advocate’s notice dated 22.12.2017 claimed

the suit land to be the joint property. Finding no alternative

way the appellant-plaintiffs filed the suit before the Learned

Trial Court. Initially, the suit was filed at Kailashahar under

Unakoti District but due to bifurcation of the district the suit

was transferred to Ambassa, Dhalai District.

05. The synopsis of the c ase of the respondent -

defendant:-

The respondent -defendant challenged the

maintainability of the suit on the ground of limitation ,

undervaluation, principles of estoppel, waiver and

acquiescence. It was the case of the defendant that, the suit

land along with other lands were recorded in the name of the

predecessor of the appellant-plaintiffs i.e. Rebati Mohan Sarkar

as he was Karta of the joint family.

One Rajani Kanta Sarkar, who was the father of the

defendant and common ancestor of the parties came to India

from Bangladesh with his family members and other co -

neighbours, after selling out all his immovable properties at

Bangladesh. Said Rajani Kanta Sarkar took shelter at

Chailengta in the land of some tribal people with permission for

construction of huts therein. But due to old age of said Rajani

Kanta Sarkar, his eldest son Rebati Mohan Sarkar took

responsibilities of the entire family and also took funds from

the sale-proceeds of the sold out property and started

managing the family as Karta of the joint family. At that time,

Page 5 of 18

the respondent-defendant was minor. Thus, record of rights

was entered in Old Khatian No.102 by showing the name of

said Rebati Mohan Sarkar but the property was a joint family

property. During the revisional survey operation, while the

respondent-defendant was at Kailashahar, that time at the

instance of Nishit Sarkar, one of the appellant-plaintiffs, the

name of the respondent -defendant was wrongly recorded

beyond the knowled ge of the respondent -defendant as

permissive possessor against some plots of land. The

appellant-plaintiffs raised objection on 21.02.2015 for deletion

of name of the defendant but that was rejected by the

competent authority as the respondent-defendant was found to

be in possession of the suit land. Hence, the respondent -

defendant by his written statement prayed for dismissal of the

suit with costs.

06. Upon the pleadings of the parties following issues

were framed:-

ISSUES

(I) Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form

and nature?

(II) Whether the suit is barred by limitation?

(III) Whether the plaintiffs have right, title and interest

over the suit properties?

(IV) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to get recovery of

possession of the suit property after evicting the

defendant therefrom by removing all obstruction therein?

(V) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to get the decree

as prayed for?

(VI) To what other relief/reliefs the parties are entitled?

07. In order to prove the case, both the parties have

adduced oral/documentary evidence on record. For the sake of

Page 6 of 18

convenience let us reproduce herein below the names of the

witnesses and the exhibited documents which are as follows:-

APPENDIX

(A) Plaintiffs‟ Witness:

P.W. 1:- Sri Nishit Sarkar (Plaintiff No.3);

P.W. 2:- Sri Rajkumar Choudhury;

P.W. 3:- Sri Chitta Ranjan Bhowmik; and

P.W. 4 :- Sri Rakhal Bhowmik.

(B) Defendant‟s Witness :

D.W. 1 :- Sri Parimal Sarkar (Defendant);

D.W. 2 :- Smt. Hirabati Mallik; and

D.W. 3 :- Sri Manindra Bhowmik;

(C ) Plaintiffs‟ Witness:

Exhibit 1: Advocate notice dated 01-12-2017 in three

sheets along-with postal receipt and A.D.;

Exhibit 2: Reply of notice for and on behalf of Parimal

Bikash Sarkar (defendant) in three sheets;

Exhibit 3: Certified copy of Khatian No.220/1 of Mouja -

Chailengta in two sheets;

Exhibit 4: Certified copy of Khatian No.220/2 of Mouja -

Chailengta in two sheets;

Exhibit 5: Certified copy of Khatian No.220/3 of Mouja -

Chailengta in two sheets;

Exhibit 6 : Certified copy of Khatian No.220/4 of Mouja -

Chailengta in two sheets;

Exhibit 7 : Certified copy of Parcha vide No.102/1, 102/2

of Mouja-Chailengta in the name of Rebati Mohan Sarkar;

Exhibit 8: Certified copy of Khatian No.866 in the name of

Kanchan Rani Sarkar;

Exhibit 9: Family Register issued on 26 -08-2015 in the

name of Harapriya Sarkar.

(D) Defendants‟ Witness :

Exhibit A: Ration card dt. 09 -11-1967 in the name of

Rebati Mohan Sarkar and other family members in one

sheet as;

Exhibit B: Electoral card of Chaumanu Assembly

Constituency for the year 1982 in one sheet;

Exhibit C/1, C/2, C/3 : Khatian vide No.102 of Mouja -

Chailengta in three sheets;

Exhibit D: Death certificate dt. 22.06.2022 of one Smt.

Ranga Mayee Sarkar in one sheet;

Exhibit E/1, E/2, E/3: Estimate of electric connection dt.

24.02.1990 with treasury challan in three sheets ;

Exhibit F/1, F/2: Memo dt. 31.07.2017 of the SDM,

Longtarai Valley, Chailengta and copy of e -Cheque;

Exhibit G/1 to G/10: Information under the RTI dt.

05.02.2016 by the SDM, Longtarai Valley, Chailengta, in

ten sheets.

Page 7 of 18

08. Finally, on conclusion of trial the Learned Trial Court

dismissed the suit. The operative portion of the judgment and

order of the Learned Trial Court runs as follows:-

ORDER

14. In view of reasons above given on the aforesaid

issues, the suit of the plaintiffs is dismissed.

15. Let a decree be drawn accordingly and place

before me for my official seal signature within

15 days from today.

16. The suit is disposed of on contest.

17. Make entry in the Trial Register.

09. Challenging the judgment, the original plaintiffs as

appellants have filed the First Appeal before the Court of

Learned District Judge, Dhalai District, Ambassa under Section

96 of CPC which was numbered as TA No.02 of 2021 and the

Learned District Judge after hearing the parties by judgment

dated 05.08.2023 and decree dated 11.08.2023 dismissed the

appeal filed by the appellant-plaintiffs affirming the judgment

and decree of the Learned Trial Court.

10. For the sake of convenience, let us narrate herein

below the operative portion of the judgment of the Learned

First Appellate Court which runs as follows:-

ORDER

14. In the result, the appeal is dismissed being

devoid of any merit. The judgment and decree

dated 25.02.202 1 and 08.03.2021 respectively

passed by the Learned Civil Judge (Senior

Division), Court No.1, Dhalai Judicial District,

Ambassa in Title Suit-06 of 2018 (Renumbered

as Title Suit-09 of 2018) whereby the Learned

Trial Court dismissed the suit on contest is

hereby upheld.

15. The appeal is disposed of on contest without

cost.

16. Prepare decree accordingly within time.

17. Send back the Lower Court Record along with a

copy of this judgment.

Page 8 of 18

18. Make necessary entry in the concerned Trial

Register.

11. Challenging the judgment, this appeal has been

preferred by the appellant-plaintiffs. Now, at the time of

hearing of argument, Learned Counsel for the appellants drawn

the attention of the Court, admittedly the suit property was

belonging to Rebati Mohan Sarkar being the predecessor of the

appellant-plaintiffs who possessed the same by different acts of

possession constructing his home stead therein. The

respondent-defendant was his brother and during his life time

he allowed his brother to stay on a portion of the suit land with

condition to vacate the same as and when required. He started

utilizing the same and during settlement operation somehow

the name of the respondent was recorded as a permis sive

possessor and when the appellant -plaintiffs requested to

vacate the suit land that time he refused to do the same rather

started making constructions therein which compelled the

appellants to file the suit and before the Learned Trial Court

the appellants adduced oral/documentary evidence on record

but the Learned Trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence on

record of the appellant-plaintiffs properly and dismissed the

suit.

12. According to Learned Counsel for the appellant-

plaintiffs, the respondent-defendant had no right, title and

interest over the suit land at any point of time and he was

permitted to posses the land on condition to vacate the same.

The permissive possessor as per law cannot claim any right or

Page 9 of 18

title over the suit land but the Learned Courts below came to

the observation that it was a joint family property and the

respondent got electric connection, water supply connection

over the same . So, Learned Trial Court came to the

observation that since it was a joint family property as such

there was no scope on the part of the appellant-plaintiffs to get

a decree and dismissed the suit which has been affirmed by

the Learned First Appellate Court without any justified grounds.

13. Learned Counsel for the appellant-plaintiffs further

submitted that had the respondent-defendant could have any

documentary evidence on record , in that case he could

approach to the settlement authority for insertion of his name

in the record, but he did not do so. Rather he tried to establish

a case that the predecessor of the appellant-plaintiffs Rebati

Mohan Sarkar accumulated money from his father of the

landed properties and being a Karta of the joint family he used

to look after all the properties and managed to record his name

in the respective ROR depriving the respondent-defendant. This

story according to Learned Counsel cannot be accepted as a

true and lawful story but the Learned Courts below did not

consider the oral/documentary evidence on record of the

appellants and dismissed the suit which needs to be interfered

with and urged before the Learned Court to grant a decree in

favour of the appellant-plaintiffs.

14. On the other hand , Learned Counsel for the

respondent-defendant submitted that, there was no infirmity in

Page 10 of 18

the judgment delivered by the Learned Trial Court as well as

the Learned First Appellate Court. According to the Learned

Counsel, the appellant-plaintiffs before the Trial Court could

not adduce any documentary evidence on record in support of

their title over the suit land rather the respondent-defendant

by adducing oral/documentary evidence on record could satisfy

the Court that the suit property was a joint family property and

it was jointly owned and possessed by the predecessor of the

appellant-plaintiffs and the respondent-defendant and after his

death the appellant-plaintiffs as well as by the respondent-

defendant and furthermore, over the suit land the respondent

has raised his constructions and staying therein with his family

members wherein he got his electric connection in his name as

well as the water connection also. So, considering the materials

on record, the Learned Trial Court rightly dismissed the suit

which has been affirmed by the Fir st Appellate Court and

according to Learned Counsel there is no merit in the appeal

and the substantial question of law leans in favour of the

respondent-defendant and urged for dismissal of the appeal

with costs.

15. It is admitted by both the parties that a portion of

the suit property has been recorded in the name of

respondent-defendant as permissive possessor. Admittedly,

the respondent-defendant could not produce any documentary

evidence on record over the suit property to substantiate his

Page 11 of 18

title over the same rather he took the plea that it was a joint

family property.

16. Now, here in this appeal this Court is to decide

whether on the basis of mere entry as permissive occupier or

possessor the respondent-defendant would be able to protect

his title or not. As already stated the respondent-defendant

could not submit any documentary evidence on record in

respect of the suit property save and except his entry a s

permissive possessor in the respective Khatian. There is no

evidence on record that he ever took any effort for correction

of entry to the respective authority to substantiate his defence

rather it has been specifically pleaded and admitted by the

appellant- plaintiffs, that in the year 1988, a portion of the suit

property was permitted to be used by the appellant-plaintiffs to

the respondent-defendant on condition to vacate the same as

and when required which the respondent -defendant refused to

vacate rather tried to raise constructions when the suit has

been filed by the appellant-plaintiffs.

It is the admitted position that, for correction of

permissive possession probably the appellant -plaintiffs filed

petition but that was rejected by the authority on the ground

that the respondent-defendant was found to be in possession

of the suit property. It is admitted by both the parties that,

the respondent-defendant is presently occupying the suit

property. In this regard, Section 43 (3) of TLR and LR Act,

1960 is relevant which provides as under:-

Page 12 of 18

“Section 43 (3)- Every entry in the record of

rights as finally published shall, until the

contrary is proved, be presumed to be correct.”

17. As already stated at the time of hearing, Learned

Counsel for the respondent-defendant pleaded the case o n

behalf of the said respondent-defendant on the basis of entry

in the ROR as permissive possessor.

In this regard, Hon’ble the Supreme Court of India

in a judgment in Neelam Gupta and Others Vs. Rajendra

Kumar Gupta and Another reported in 2024 SCC OnLine

SC 2824, wherein in relevant portion of Para No.34 and Para

Nos.37, 41, 43 observed as under:-

“34. *********** In view of the above

indisputable and undisputed facts as also the

rejection of contention of voidness of the sale

deeds referred above, the defendants would not

be justified in claiming that they had perfected

the title by adverse possession and at the same

time the aforesaid position would reveal that

their possession was permissive in nature. The

conclusion so arrived by the High Court based

on proper appreciation of the evidence, in

detail, as is discernible from the impugned

judgment is nothing but the outcome of correct

appreciation of the materials on record.

37. We have already taken note of the fact that

the High Court had duly taken note of Ext.P4

application submitted by the defendants, and

also the evidence of DW -1, while being cross

examined which were not given due weight by

the Courts below. We have also found that the

High Court has rightly reached the conclusion

that the appellants herein had only permissive

possession over the schedule d land and it was

not adverse possession. In the contextual

situation the following decisions including the

one in Saroop Singh v. Banto :[(2005) 8 SCC

330] relied on by the High Court, assume much

relevance. Paragraphs 28, 29 and 30 of Saroop

Singh‟s decision read thus:-

“28. The statutory provisions of

the Limitation Act have undergone a

change when compared to the terms

of Articles 142 and 144 of the Schedule

appended to the Limitation Act, 1908, in

Page 13 of 18

terms whereof it was imperative upon

the plaintiff not only to prove his title but

also to prove his possession within

twelve years, preceding the date of

institution of the suit. However, a change

in legal position has been effected in

view of Articles 64 and 65 of

the Limitation Act, 1963 . In the instant

case, the plaintiff -respondents have

proved their title and, thus, it was for the

first defendant to prove acquisition of

title by adverse possession. As noticed

hereinbefore, the first defendant -

appellant did not raise any plea of

adverse possession. In that view of the

matter the suit was not barred.

41. In the decision in Brij Narayan Shukla (D)

through LRs. v. Sudesh Kumar alias Suresh

Kumar (D) through LRs. and Ors. :[(2024) 2 SCC

590], this Court while considering the question

whether tenants of original owner could claim

adverse possession against transferee of land

lord held that tenants or lessees could not claim

adverse possession against their

landlord/lessor, a s the nature of their

possession is permissive in nature.

43. In the case on hand, the evidence on the

part of the defendants/appellants herein would

reveal that instead of establishing „animus

possidendi‟ under hostile colour of title they

have tendered evidence indicating only

permissive possession and at the same time

failed to establish the time from which it was

converted to adverse to the title of the plaintiff

which is open and continuous for the

prescriptive period.”

Here in the case at hand, it is not the case of the

respondent-defendant that they are claiming the suit land on

the basis of adverse possession. Rather the respondent -

defendant tried to protect his title by raising the plea of

permissive possession and joint family property. Because in a

case of adverse possession the possessor should accept the

ownership of the original owner but here in the case at hand,

the respondent-defendant never accepted the absolute

ownership of the appellant-plaintiffs or their predecessor and

Page 14 of 18

as such in absence of the claim of adverse possession no relief

can be granted in favour of the respondent-defendant.

In another judgment in Rabindranath Panigrahi

Vs. Surendra Sahu reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 504 of

Hon’ble the Apex Court wherein in Para Nos.3.7, 10 and 12

observed as under:-

“3.7 Being dissatisfied with the judgment of the

Trial Court, the defendant preferred a Regu lar

First Appeal No. 04 of 2010: Previously

numbered as R.F.A. No.76 of 2007 before the

learned 1st Addl. District Judge, Ber hampur

(District Ganjam). By judgment dated 29th

January 2011, the First Appellate Court affirmed

the findings of the Court below and dismissed

the appeal with costs, and observed that : -

“6. … Admittedly Ashalata Devi was the

owner of the suit house. The plaintiff

claiming to be the adopted son of the

Ashalata Devi has filed the suit for eviction

against the defendant. The learned trial

court relying upon the oral and number of

contemporaneous documentary evidence

has held that the plaintiff is the adopted

son of the said Ashalata Devi and that after

the death of said Ashalata Devi the plaintiff

has acquired title to the suit property. The

aforesaid findings of the trial court have

not been challenged by the appellant.

Therefore, the sole point that needs to be

considered in this appeal is whether the

defendant has acquired title to the suit

shop house by adverse possession. It

appears that right from the beginning the

defendant pleaded tha t he occupied the suit

premises with the permission of Ashalata

Devi in the year 1974. It is settled position

of law that permissive possession cannot

be construed as adverse possession and

possession being with permission cannot

become adverse unless host ile animus was

expressed at any particular time to the

knowledge of the owner. In support of such

proposition of law, the learned trial court

had referred several judgments of the

Hon'ble Apex Court and of our own High

Court. In the written statement there is no

plea as to when the defendant exhibited

hostile animus in possessing the suit

property. Admittedly Ashalata Devi, has not

transferred the suit premises in favour of

Page 15 of 18

the defendant by way of any registered gift

deed. In absence of such registered gift

deed the possession of the defendant over

the suit premises is held to be permissive.

It is the settled position of law that mere

possession for howsoever length of time

does not result in converting the

permissive possession into adverse

possession. Mere payment of electricity

dues in the name of the real owner for over

statutory period cannot prove adverse

possession of the defendant over the suit

premises. It appears that the learned trial

court has gone in the evidence adduced by

the defendant in detai l and after

considering the evidence on record, found

it as a fact that the possession of the

defendant over the suit premises was not

adverse for the statutory period. In my

view that the learned Civil Judge (SD),

Berhampur has come to the right

conclusion that the defendant has failed to

prove his title over the suit premises by

way of adverse possession. Sinec the

defendant has been in illegal possession of

the suit premises without payment of rent

rightly the learned trial court has held that

the defendant is liable to pay the arrear

rent and damages. Hence, there is no

reason for this Court to interfere with the

impugned judgment and decree."

10. Additionally, we find that both the Courts

below held the relationship of landlord and

tenant to be proved between the parties. This,

in our view, is a finding of fact which could not

be disturbed by the Court in the Second Appeal,

as it was not open for the Court to examine the

evidence assuming First Appeal jurisdiction,

unless the findings returned were perv erse. In

the present facts, the findings of perversity, in

our view, are in themselves perverse. This we

say so for two reasons : One, that the defendant

has been unable to prove his ownership of the

subject matter property by way of adverse

possession, establishing open, continuous and

hostile possession; and two, that the plaintiff‟s

ownership that he claims to have devolved upon

him by virtue of being the adopted son of Smt.

Ashalata Devi (original owner) has nowhere

been challenged and, as such, has att ained

finality.

12. Consequently, the judgment of the High

Court is set aside. The tenant is hereby directed

to handover vacant and peaceful possession of

the subject premises within a period of three

months from the date of this judgment. The

tenant is further directed to clear all arrears, be

it rent, utilities or otherwise, within the same

Page 16 of 18

timeframe. It is to be ensured that as on the

date of handing over of possession, all dues,

statutory and/or contractual, arising out of the

tenancy, shall be duly cleared. The Regist ry is

directed to communicate a copy of this order to

the Registrar General, High Court of Orissa, who

shall further communicate the same to the

concerned parties.”

18. From the aforesaid judgment, it appears that,

permissive possession cannot be construed as adverse

possession and possession being permissive cannot become

adverse unless hostile animus was expressed at any particular

time to the knowledge of the owner. Further, it also has been

observed that mere possession for howsoever length of time

does not result in converting the permissive possession into

adverse possession. Here in the case at hand as already

discussed and stated the respondent -defendant could not

adduce any documentary evidence on record showing it s title

over the suit land nor there was any plea of adverse

possession as already stated. So just with the plea of

possessing the land as a joint family property and also with the

plea of permissive possession by raising constructions cannot

be a valid ground to deny the title of the original owner that is

the appellant-plaintiffs herein.

19. Admittedly the appellant-plaintiffs could not prove

any title deed in support of their ownership over the suit land.

But it is true that the settlement authority after observing

different stages during settlement operation prepares the

record of rights. So, the prima facie prove of ownership of the

appellant-plaintiffs cannot be denied over the suit land and

Page 17 of 18

furthermore to rebut the contention of the appellant-plaintiffs,

the respondent-defendant could not produce any document to

substantiate that they have better title over the suit land.

20. Thus, it appears to this Court that, both the Courts

below have failed to appreciate the evidence on record in

accordance with law rather came to the observation that , the

appellant-plaintiffs have no right title over the suit land and

dismissed the suit of the appellant-plaintiffs which in the

considered opinion of this Court was totally misconceived, not

tenable in the eye of law and not supported by any cogent

lawful grounds and as such, both the Courts below have

committed error in passing judgments dismissing the suit of

the appellant-plaintiffs.

21. In the result, the appeal filed by the appellant -

plaintiffs is hereby allowed. The right title interest of the

appellant-plaintiffs over the suit land is hereby declared. The

respondent-defendant is hereby directed to vacate and to hand

over the suit premise to the appellant-plaintiffs within a period

of 03 (three) months from the date of passing of this judgment

failing which the same shall be recovered by the appellant-

plaintiffs by due process of law.

The judgments of the Learned Trial Court as well as

the judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court

are accordingly stands set aside and quashed.

With this observation, this appeal stands disposed of

on contest with costs in favour of the appellant-plaintiffs.

Page 18 of 18

Prepare decree accordingly.

Send down the records to the Learned Courts below

along with a copy of this judgment/order.

Pending application/s, if any, also stands disposed

of.

JUDGE

Amrita