JUDGMENT S.C. Das, J.:- RSA 10 of 2005 and RSA 11 of 2005 are taken up together for disposal since both the appeals filed by the same set of appellants against the same set of respondents challenging a common appellate judgment and decree dated 16.10.2004, passed by learned Addl. District Judge (Fast track Court), Kailashahar, North Tripura, in Title Appeal No. 02 of 2003 and Title Appeal No. 03 of 2003. This common judgment shall, therefore, govern both the appeals. Both the 2nd appeals were admitted on the following substantial questions of law:- 1) Whether the District Collector has jurisdiction to pass order for correction of record of rights under section 95 of the TLR & LR Act, 1960? 2) Whether a decree of recovery of khas possession can be granted in the form of mandatory injunction? 2. Heard learned Senior counsel Mr. D. Chakraborty assisted by learned counsel Mr. H. Laskar for the appellants in both the cases and learned counsel Mr. D.K. Biswas for the respondents in both the cases. 3. The appellant No. 2 and her husband Jagannath Roy, since deceased, the predecessor of all the appellants as plaintiffs (hereinafter mentioned as appellants) filed Title Suit No. 12 of 2000 in the Court of Civil Judge, Jr. Division, Dharmanagar seeking declaration of right, title, interest and possession over the suit land described in Schedule B of the plaint and also prayed for permanent injunction restraining the defendants i.e. the respondents herein (hereinafter mentioned as respondents) from entering into or disturbing the peaceful possession of the appellants in the suit land. It is inter alia contended that the suit land measuring 0.207 acres described in Schedule B of the plaint were purchased by the plaintiffs Jangannath Roy, since deceased, and Mira Roy in the year 1999 through registered deed of purchase from the original owners by means of Exhibit 1, Exhibit 2, Exhibit 3 and Exhibit 4 and got physical possession from their vendors and were possessing the same exercising all acts of possession. After purchase, in course of mutation of their purchased land, they found that land measuring 0.054 acres was wrongly recorded in the name of the defendants in Khatian No. 3049, Old C.S. Plot No. 4856/5151 and present C.S. Plot No. 5312/11913. After purchase, in course of mutation of their purchased land, they found that land measuring 0.054 acres was wrongly recorded in the name of the defendants in Khatian No. 3049, Old C.S. Plot No. 4856/5151 and present C.S. Plot No. 5312/11913. They immediately preferred an application under Section95 of the TLR and LR Act before the Collector for correction of record of rights which was registered as Revenue Case No. 74 of 2000 under Section 95 of TLR and LR Act, 1960 and by order dated 09.05.2000 the Collector allowed the petition and directed the correction of record of rights as prayed by the plaintiff-appellants and accordingly, the record of rights was corrected. The defendants having no right, title, interest or possession on 16.05.2000 and on 13.6.2000 made attempt to dispossess the plaintiffs/appellants from the suit land and hence, the plaintiff instituted the suit seeking the relief as stated hereinabove. During pendency of the suit, the defendants (respondents) on 11.5.2001 at about 9-00 a.m. extended one "ekchala" (shed) from their homestead placing poles over a portion of the suit land and the plaintiffs, therefore, amended the plaint and prayed for a mandatory direction to the defendants to remove the poles and ’Ekchala’ from the suit land. 4. Respondent No. 1, Babul Roy did not contest the suit and also did not prefer appeal. Respondent No. 2, Jhunu Roy contested the suit by filing written statement and also set up a counter claim inter alia stating that the defendants (respondents) purchased land measuring 0.150 acres in the year 1986 from the original owners by registered deed (Exhibit C and Exhibit D) and thereafter purchased land was recorded in the name of the defendants in Khatian No. 3049. The plaintiffs (appellants) created sham title deeds with a view to grab the land of the defendants and the defendants are/were in possession of the land described in second schedule of the counter claim measuring 0.50 acres. The defendant-respondents also claimed that the possession of the defendants has been perfected by elapse of time. The khatian was rightly prepared and the Collector wrongly passed the order directing correction of record of rights but the defendants did not challenge it since in the meantime, the civil suit was already filed by the plaintiffs. The defendant-respondents also claimed that the possession of the defendants has been perfected by elapse of time. The khatian was rightly prepared and the Collector wrongly passed the order directing correction of record of rights but the defendants did not challenge it since in the meantime, the civil suit was already filed by the plaintiffs. In the counter claim defendants prayed for declaration of their right, title, interest and possession in the suit land of 0.50 acres described in the second schedule of the counter claim. 5. The Title Suit instituted by the appellants was registered as T.S. 12/2000 and the counter claim set up by the defendant No. 2 was registered as T.S. 12 (Counter claim) of 2000. Both the claim and counter claim were tried together and in the course of trial, learned Civil Judge, Jr. Division formulated four issues both in the Title Suit and in the Counter Claim as follows:- I. Is the suit maintainable in its present form? II. Is there any cause of action for the suit? III. Have the plaintiffs right, title, interest and possession over the suit land described in Schedule-B of the plaint? IV. To what relief, if any, are the plaintiffs entitled? Title (Counter Claim) 12 of 2000 I. Is the Counter-claim of the defendant No. 2 maintainable in the present form and law? II. Is there any cause of action for filing the Counter claim? III. Has the defendant No. 2 got right, title, interest and possession over the suit land described in the Second schedule of the Counter-claim? Has he acquired title thereover by way of adverse possession? IV. To what relief, if any, is the defendant No. 2 entitled? 6. In course of trial, the appellants examined 5 (five) witnesses in support of their case and proves 7 items of documents namely the Title Deeds, Khatian and the copy of order passed by the Collector etc. 7. On behalf of the respondents four witnesses were examined and the respondents also exhibited 12 items of documents namely the title deed, rent receipts, khatian, copy of order passed by the Collector etc. The trial Court considering the pleadings and evidence on record decided all the issues of T.S. 12 of 2000 in favour of the appellants and decreed the suit. Consequently, the counter claim was decided against the defendant-respondents and was dismissed. 8. The trial Court considering the pleadings and evidence on record decided all the issues of T.S. 12 of 2000 in favour of the appellants and decreed the suit. Consequently, the counter claim was decided against the defendant-respondents and was dismissed. 8. Aggrieved, the respondent No. 2 (defendant No. 2) preferred Title Appeal No. 2 of 2003 and Title Appeal No. 3 of 2003 challenging the common judgment passed by the learned Civil Judge, Jr. Division in the Title Suit and counter claim. 9. Learned Additional District Judge by impugned judgment and decree dated 16.10.2004 allowed the appeals, set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Judge and decreed the counter claim. 10. Learned Additional District Judge interfered with the judgment passed by the learned trial Judge on the ground that the respondents purchased land in the year 1986 by unregistered deed (Exhibit-C) and the land described in second schedule of the counter claim is the part of the land which the respondents got by dint of unregistered instrument which the trial Court failed to construe. It is also held by the learned Additional District Judge in the appellate judgment that the Collector has no authority under Section 95 to direct rectification of finally published record of rights and so the Collector’s order marked as Exhibit 5 has no bearing on the finally published record of rights prepared in the name of the respondents. Learned Addl. District Judge further observed that the unregistered instrument Exhibit-C may be used for collateral purpose and the defendants since possessing the suit land, learned Additional District Judge arrived at a finding that the defendants acquired title over the suit land by way of adverse possession. 11. Learned Senior counsel Mr. Chakraborty has submitted that the trial Court has passed a reasoned judgment considering the pleadings and the documentary evidence adduced by the parties. The appellate Court simply based on the pleadings and taking into consideration the Exhibit-C passed the judgment setting aside the reasoned judgment of the trial Court. It is also contended by Mr. Chakraborty, learned Sr. counsel, that the appellate Court has failed to construe the provisions of Section 45 and 95 of the TLR and LR Act and arrived at a wrong finding. It is also contended by Mr. Chakraborty, learned Sr. counsel, that the appellate Court has failed to construe the provisions of Section 45 and 95 of the TLR and LR Act and arrived at a wrong finding. He has also submitted that there is neither pleading nor evidence of adverse possession whereas the appellate Court decreed the counter claim holding that the respondents acquired title by adverse possession. 12. Appearing on behalf of the respondents, learned counsel Mr. Biswas has submitted that the land described in the schedule of the counter claim, along with other land were acquired by the respondents in the year 1986 by registered deed as well as by unregistered deed. The appellants purchased the land in the year 1999 long after the defendants got the suit land along with other lands. The possession of the defendants has been perfected by elapse of time and the khatian prepared in the name of the defendants is the proof of their possession in the suit land. The appellate Court has rightly taken into consideration the unregistered document (Exhibit C) and arrived at a correct finding. Though a plea of adverse possession was not taken but in view of the continuous possession of the defendants, the conclusion arrived by the appellate Court in respect of the counter claim was correct and should not be interfered by this Court in the second appeal. 13. I have meticulously gone through the judgment passed by the trial Court as well as the appellate Court. Exhibit 1 to Exhibit 4 clearly shows that the appellants purchased the suit land described in the schedule of the plaint of T.S. 12/2000. The trial Court arrived at a clear finding on the issue considering both the pleadings and the evidence on record. On the contrary respondent No. 2 failed to make out a case that they have purchased the land described in schedule 2 of the counter claim. The appellate Court arrived at a finding that the entry in the record of rights was made based on Exhibit-C an unregistered instrument. Transfer of immovable property can be effected by a registered instrument. On the contrary respondent No. 2 failed to make out a case that they have purchased the land described in schedule 2 of the counter claim. The appellate Court arrived at a finding that the entry in the record of rights was made based on Exhibit-C an unregistered instrument. Transfer of immovable property can be effected by a registered instrument. While the appellants proved their case by placing on record the registered instrument in respect of their purchase of the suit land, the claim of the appellants could not be countered by an unregistered deed claiming thereby that the respondents got the suit land described in the counter claim by such instrument. The appellate Court was absolutely wrong in arriving at a finding that the respondents got the land by means of unregistered instrument and the unregistered instrument can be utilized for collateral purpose. No doubt an unregistered instrument of immovable property may be used for collateral purpose if there is no other instrument of such property. Where the suit land was transferred by the original owners by dint of registered instrument to the appellants, the documents cannot be countered by an unregistered instrument and the appellate Court was, therefore, absolutely wrong in considering Exhibit C and thereby arrived at a wrong finding. 14. The trial Court considered both oral and documentary evidence very meticulously. The respondent No. 2 did not turn up to adduce evidence and through a power of attorney, respondent No. 2 adduced evidence. The trial Court considered the oral evidence adduced by both sides and arrived at a very reasoned finding in respect of possession. The appellate Court did not at all consider the oral evidence in respect of possession of the suit land. The appellants claimed that they got the suit land by registered instrument and got physical possession of the same and were exercising their acts of possession and when the defendants were disturbing them, they instituted the suit. Defendant No. 1 did not challenge the claim of the appellants-plaintiffs. Defendant No. 2 challenged the claim but neither by documentary evidence nor by oral evidence the defendant could establish title or possession in the suit land whereas the appellate Court suddenly jumped to the conclusion that the respondents acquired title by adverse possession. 15. It is the settled principle that possession follows title. The appellants acquired title by dint of registered instrument. 15. It is the settled principle that possession follows title. The appellants acquired title by dint of registered instrument. To oust the appellants from their claim of the suit land, by exerting the plea of adverse possession, the defendants were supposed to set up the claim in their pleadings that they acquired title by way of adverse possession. In his counter claim the defendant No. 2 prayed for declaration of right, title, interest and possession as well as injunction but no prayer made for a decree of adverse possession. It is not understood wherefrom learned Additional District Judge brought the case of adverse possession and decreed the counter claim. While the defendant did not set up any plea of adverse possession the appellate Court would not have decreed the counter claim holding that the defendants acquired title by adverse possession. 16. The defendant No. 2 all through set up his claim stating that he got ownership of the land by dint of their purchase in the year 1986. There is no case of the defendant-respondents that the title was with the plaintiffs and their vendors but they entered into possession denying the title of the rightful owner and continued in possession for more than the statutory period of 12 years. In the absence of any such pleadings and evidence, the finding of learned Additional District Judge is liable to be held as perverse. 17. Learned Additional District Judge also arrived at a finding that under Section 95 of the TLR and LR Act, the Collector has no authority to direct correction of finally published record of rights. According to learned Additional District Judge, such correction of finally published record of rights was possible only by a Revenue Officer within one year of final publication of the record of rights as prescribed in Section 45 of the TLR and LR Act. It appears that learned Additional District Judge misread and misconstrued the provisions of Section 45 and Section 95 of TLR and LR Act. Section 45 simply prescribes that a Revenue Officer specially empowered by the State Government may on application made to him or of his own motion, within one year from the date of final publication of the record of rights, correct any entry in such record which, he has been satisfied, has been made owing to "bonafide mistake" (emphasis supplied). Section 45 simply prescribes that a Revenue Officer specially empowered by the State Government may on application made to him or of his own motion, within one year from the date of final publication of the record of rights, correct any entry in such record which, he has been satisfied, has been made owing to "bonafide mistake" (emphasis supplied). The provision clearly prescribes that a bonafide mistake can be corrected by a Revenue Officer empowered by the State Government within one year from the date of publication of finally published record of rights. There is no conflict between Section 45 and Section 95 of the TLR and LR Act. 18. Section 95 vested wide power on the Collector which may be exercised at any time for any purpose as may be required in respect of revenue matters. Section 95 reads as follows:- 95. State Government or the Collector may, at any time, either on his own motion or on the application of any party, call for the records of any proceedings before any revenue officer subordinate to him for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the legality or the propriety of any order passed by such revenue officer, and may pass such order in reference thereto as he thinks fit. 19. A Collector is a Revenue Officer appointed by the State Government as prescribed under Section 4 of the TLR and LR Act. In exercise of power under Section 95, the Collector has got the authority to rectify/modify any record of rights at any point of time. The finding of the learned Additional District Judge that the Collector has no power to rectify a record of rights under Section 95 is absolutely contrary to the provisions of law and hence, liable to be interfered. 20. The plaintiffs asserted that the respondents extended one "ekchala" during pendency of the suit and therefore prayed before the Court for directing the respondents to remove the "ekchala". The trial Court allowed it. The appellate Court arrived at a finding that it amounts to dispossession from the suit land and the trial Court was not correct in directing the respondents from removing the same in the absence of any prayer for recovery of possession. I cannot agree with this finding of learned Additional District Judge on this score. The trial Court allowed it. The appellate Court arrived at a finding that it amounts to dispossession from the suit land and the trial Court was not correct in directing the respondents from removing the same in the absence of any prayer for recovery of possession. I cannot agree with this finding of learned Additional District Judge on this score. While the defendants extended one "ekchala" during pendency of the suit and the plaintiffs prayed for mandatory direction to remove the "ekchala", in my considered opinion, the trial Court while decided all the issues in favour of the plaintiffs, rightly directed the defendants to remove the "ekchala" from the part of the suit land. There is nothing to hold that unless a suit for recovery of possession is instituted such a direction cannot be given. 21. In the result, the appeals are allowed. 22. The judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Kailashahar in Title Appeal No. 2 of 2003 and Title Appeal No. 3 of 2003 are set aside. The judgment and decree passed by the trial Judge in Title Suit No. 12 of 2000 and Title Suit No. 12 (counter claim) of 2000 are restored and upheld. 23. Both the appeals, accordingly, are disposed of. Send back the L.C. records along with a copy of this judgment.