JUDGMENT Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.C. Das 1. This is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, directed against order dated 06.10.2010, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Court No.3, West Tripura, Agartala, in Civil Misc.(Appeal) No.05 of 2008. Heard learned counsel, Mr. D.R. Choudhury and learned counsel, Mr. D. Deb for the petitioners and learned senior counsel, Mr. S. Deb, assisted by learned counsel, Mr. P. Datta for the respondent. 2. The respondent as plaintiff instituted Title Suit No.(C/C) 09 of 2008 in the Court of Civil Judge, Jr. Division, Court No.2, Agartala, West Tripura, along with a separate petition under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of CPC, praying for temporary injunction restraining the defendants from interfering and/or disturbing peaceful possession of the plaintiff in the suit land. The prayer for temporary injunction was allowed by the learned Civil Judge, Jr. Division in Civil Misc. Case No.05 of 2008 vide order dated 11.03.2008. Against that order the petitioners preferred Civil Misc.(Appeal) No.05 of 2008 before the District Court and learned Addl. District Judge, Court No.3, West Tripura, Agartala, by order dated 06.10.2010 dismissed the appeal and affirmed the order passed by learned Civil Judge, Jr. Division, dated 11.03.2008 in Civil Misc. Case No.05 of 2008. Being aggrieved, the petitioners preferred the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and prayed for interfering with order dated 06.10.2010. 3. Learned counsel, Mr. Choudhury submits that the petitioners also instituted Title Suit No.153 of 2007 in the Court of Civil Judge, Jr. Division and also filed a separate petition for granting temporary injunction but that was rejected by the trial Court. It is submitted that the petitioner No.1 and the respondent are full blood brothers. Their mother Haima Prabha Debi during her life time in the year 1962 gifted 3 gandas of land to petitioner No.1, and thereafter, in the year 1970 she gifted 3 gandas of land to the respondent. In the southern boundary of the gifted land of the plaintiff, the land of one Rohini Chakraborty has been shown, which means further south of the respondent there was no land left in the possession of Haima Prabha Debi. In the southern boundary of the gifted land of the plaintiff, the land of one Rohini Chakraborty has been shown, which means further south of the respondent there was no land left in the possession of Haima Prabha Debi. Haima Prabha Debi had 7 gandas, 2 karas, 2 kranta and 8 dhurs of land, out of which she gifted 3 gandas to the petitioner No.1 and 3 gandas to the respondent and the rest about two gandas left in her title and possession. That part of land of Haima Prabha has been lying in between the land of petitioner No.1 and the respondent, running from north to south, which was used by the petitioner and the respondent for their common egress and ingress in their houses. It is also submitted that the respondent, while working in the Settlement Department as an employee, managed to create khatians wrongly showing the rest two gandas of land of Haima Prabha in the southern side and created khatian accordingly, which has been challenged by the petitioner before the Revenue authority and decision is yet to come out. Taking advantage of the prohibitory order passed by the Court below, the respondent is trying to construct a boundary wall occupying the passage lying between the petitioner and the respondent, and thereby, trying to get the land of Haima Prabha. 4. The case of the respondent is that Haima Prabha gifted the land to her both sons, 3 gandas each. The total land is situated in the southern side of the Akhaura road. The eastern part was gifted to the petitioner and the western part to the respondent. In the gift deed of the respondent the eastern boundary has been mentioned as of the petitioner Nirmal Kanti Roy Barman, which means there was no land left for Haima Prabha Devi in between two brothers. After the gift deeds were executed, the settlement records were prepared and the land of petitioner Nirmal Kanti Roy Barman was recorded in plot No.264 and the land of respondent Mrinal Kanti Roy Barman recorded in plot No.262 and remaining land of Haima Prabha was recorded in 263. After the gift deeds were executed, the settlement records were prepared and the land of petitioner Nirmal Kanti Roy Barman was recorded in plot No.264 and the land of respondent Mrinal Kanti Roy Barman recorded in plot No.262 and remaining land of Haima Prabha was recorded in 263. Referring to the khatians recorded in the name of the petitioner, the respondent and the deceased Haima Prabha and the map prepared by the appropriate authority, it is submitted that the remaining land of Haima Prabha has been recorded in the extreme south of the respondent, and there is a passage in the west of plot No.262 and 263 recorded as plot No.261. In view of the documents placed on record and in view of the concurrent finding of the trial court and the first appellate Court, I find nothing to note that there was any jurisdictional error or that there was any perverse finding or denial of principles of natural justice. 5. It is submitted by learned counsel, Mr. Chowdhury that a physical verification by a Survey Commissioner, or otherwise, may be done to determine whether there was any existence of a passage between the two brothers or not. On the contrary it is submitted by learned counsel of the respondent that such a prayer for Survey Commission was made before the trial Court but that was rejected with sound reasons and the petitioners did not challenge the order, and so, there is no point of making any order by this Court on that point. If we examine the boundary description of the gift deed, we find that the eastern side boundary of the gifted land of respondent belonged to petitioner No.1, which means there was no land belonged to Haima Prabha Debi in between the petitioner and the respondent. Similarly, in the southern side of the gifted land of the respondent, boundary of one Rohini Chakraborty has been shown which means there was no land of Haima Prabha left in the southern side. The creation of khatian showing Haima Prabha in the southern side of the respondent, therefore, might create some confusion, which may be deiced by the trial Court after taking evidence of both side. The creation of khatian showing Haima Prabha in the southern side of the respondent, therefore, might create some confusion, which may be deiced by the trial Court after taking evidence of both side. The allegation that the respondent created the khatian surreptitiously showing Haima Prabha in his southern side is a matter to be decided by the Civil Court and this Court while deciding a petition under Article 227 cannot decide the issue of fact. In view of the discussion made above, the revisional application stands dismissed but in the circumstances without cost. Application dismissed