JUDGMENT & ORDER : Heard Mr. A. De, learned counsel appearing for the appellants as well as Mr. S. M. Chakraborty, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. D. Das, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. This is an appeal under Section 100 of the CPC against the reversal finding returned by the first appellate court by the judgment dated 20.04.2013 delivered in Title Appeal No.34 of 2010. For purpose of hearing, the following substantial questions of law have been formulated at the time of admission, by this court by the order dated 25.07.2013: (i) Whether on the basis of the record of rights, a title can be presumed under Section 43(3) of the TLR & LR Act, 1960? and (ii) Whether the learned District Judge without going into the aspect regarding the genuineness of the power of attorney has committed any illegality or not? 3. The fact as it would essentially required for appreciating those substantial questions may be introduced at the outset. The respondent instituted the suit for declaration of title and perpetual injunction against the appellants herein. The suit land which is the subject matter of the suit being Title Suit No.21 of 2008 is comprised in Khatian No.654, CS Plot No.1145/2227 of Mouja Karaiamura and also in the Khatian No.457, CS. Plot No.1150 and 1147. The total land in those 3(three) plots is 2.53 acres. According to the plaintiff, she is an allottee and she constructed a dwelling hut in an area measuring 0.20 acres comprised in C.S. plot No.1147 of Khatian No.454. In the schedule appended to the plaint, the suit land has been described with the boundaries. It appears that on the southern and the western boundaries the defendant-appellants have their land. The plaintiff has stated that she had developed the land for cultivating the paddy, mesta and chhara kachu in the plot No.1150 and 1145/2227 and by selling those produce the plaintiff had been managing her family. 4. In the year 1974 and in the year 1982 the plaintiff got allotment of the suit land in parts, even though she had been possessing the suit land since the year 1964. The defendant-appellants do not have any right, title and interest over the said land. 4. In the year 1974 and in the year 1982 the plaintiff got allotment of the suit land in parts, even though she had been possessing the suit land since the year 1964. The defendant-appellants do not have any right, title and interest over the said land. Without any real basis, on 24.01.1992 when one senior Surveyor namely Sri D.L. Dhar was surveying the land of the plaintiff in connection with a demarcation proceeding, the defendant-appellants raised objection to him. But the demarcation proceeding was brought to its logical end and the plaintiff put permanent posting by pillar along the line of the boundary of the suit land and she has asserted that she has been uninterruptedly possessing the suit land. On 26.01.2006, the suit land was leased out to A.B.C.I. Infrastructures Private Limited, a company registered under Companies Act, 1956 and the said company was storing their stone, coal etc. during the period of lease. But the lease expired on 27.01.2008. In terms of the lease, the vacant possession was handed over to the plaintiff. The defendant-appellants had been attempting to disturb the possession of the plaintiff-respondent. As the plaintiff was suffering from various ailments she had to stay at Silchar for treatment. She nominated Sri Pintu Ranjan Ghosh as her attorney by the deed of power of attorney dated 25.06.2008 to look after the suit land. Through the said attorney the plaintiff has instituted the suit. 5. On 10.09.2008, the defendant-appellants had threatened the said attorney while he was supervising the vegetables grown in the suit land. The said attorney has been residing in a dwelling hut of the plaintiff-respondent with his family. Based on the title, decree of perpetual injunction restraining the defendant-appellants has been sought in the suit. By filing a written statement, the defendant-appellants have denied the case of the plaintiff-respondent and stated that the khatian which was finally published on 13.07.1998 is not tenable and not based on proper field inquiry. They have also denied the averment of the plaintiff that she posted the pillars along the line of the boundary. Even they denied the allegation of threat to the attorney of the plaintiff-respondent. According to the defendant-appellants, the Government of Tripura allotted them the entire Plot No.511 covering an area of 9.67 acre along with the land under Khatian No.201 and old plot No.511. Even they denied the allegation of threat to the attorney of the plaintiff-respondent. According to the defendant-appellants, the Government of Tripura allotted them the entire Plot No.511 covering an area of 9.67 acre along with the land under Khatian No.201 and old plot No.511. They have stated that in Khatian No.201, it was recorded that the whole area was covered by the reserve forest and was under the occupation of the Forest Department. The defendant-appellants have stated further that once the land is allotted to the Forest Department as reserve forest, how such land can be allotted to the plaintiff-respondent. They have stated that the father of the defendant No.1 used to possess a part of the land measuring 3 kanis from the middle of 1964. They reclaimed the said land by investing money and by putting their own labour they raised plants, bamboo bush etc. Then the defendants thought it more profitable to raise rubber plantation and accordingly they planted the rubber on the said land. The suit land is now a rubber plantation. On 30.08.1968, the personnel from the Forest Department asked the father of the defendant-appellant No.1 to vacate the suit land as the same was the land of the Forest Department, but the father of the defendant No.1 denied to comply such demand. Even thereafter, the Forest Department took serious attempts to evict them from suit land but all in vain. Thus, they have acquired right, title and interest over the suit land by way of adverse possession as they are in the possession for more than thirty years denying the right, title and interest of Government of Tripura. For the same reason, the plaintiff-respondent does not have any right, title and interest or possession over the suit land. They urged for dismissing the suit. Based on those pleadings, the trial court framed the following issues for purpose of adjudicating the suit: (i) Has the plaintiff cause of action in her favour? (ii) Whether the suit land was allotted and was finally published in record of rights in favour of the plaintiff? (iii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get decree as prayed for? (iv) To what other relief/reliefs the parties are entitled to? 6. The plaintiff-respondent in support of her case adduced her attorney and other 5(five) witnesses viz. (ii) Whether the suit land was allotted and was finally published in record of rights in favour of the plaintiff? (iii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get decree as prayed for? (iv) To what other relief/reliefs the parties are entitled to? 6. The plaintiff-respondent in support of her case adduced her attorney and other 5(five) witnesses viz. Sri Pintu Ranjan Ghosh [PW-1], Sri Nikhil Ghosh [PW-2], Sri Babul Ghosh [PW-3], Sri Milan Shil [PW-4] and Sri Samir Ghosh [PW-5 whose testimony was not considered as he did not appear for cross-examination] and also admitted several documents as reflected in the appendix of the judgment delivered by the trial court. Those documents include the allotment order of 1382 BS [Exbt.1], the certified copy of Khatian No.454 of Mouja Karaiyamura [Exbt.2], the certified copy of the Khatian No.654 of Mouja Karaiyamura[Exbt.3], the certified copy of demarcation report dated 24.01.1992 [Exbt.4 series-2 sheets], certified copy of the order dated 27.08.1996 passed by the Collector, South Tripura in Revenue Case No.50 of 1996 [Exbt.5], the certified copy of RS map of sheet No.3(P) of Mouja-Kariayamura [Exbt.6], the deed of general power of attorney dated 25.06.2008 which was executed in favour of Pintu Ranjan Ghosh for looking after the properties of the respondent and to take appropriate steps [Exbt.73 sheets]. The defendant-appellants also adduced 3(three) witnesses namely Hemanta Kumar Ghosh [DW1], Amrita Ghosh [DW2] and Jiban Krishna Ghosh [DW3] and admitted in the evidence one document namely certified copy of Khatian No.201 of Mouja-Karaiyamura [Exbt.A]. On appreciating the evidence on record the trial court has observed that: “There is also no evidence on record from plaintiff side how the land under Exbt.1 attracts the land of Exbt.2 as there is no chain in between sub plot No.511/1 and 511/1248 & 511/1249 although all the aforesaid plots appears to be the part of original plot No.511.” 7. After recording such observation the trial court has also observed that it is not possible to hold that the suit land was allotted in favour of the plaintiff, even though there is a finally published record of right [khatian] in favour of the plaintiff. The trial court has also observed as under: “Exbt.5 i.e. order dated 27.08.1996 passed by the Collector, South Tripura, in Revenue case No.50/96 indicates that R.S. Plot No.1150 in C.S. Plot NO.511/1248 was under the possession of Smti. The trial court has also observed as under: “Exbt.5 i.e. order dated 27.08.1996 passed by the Collector, South Tripura, in Revenue case No.50/96 indicates that R.S. Plot No.1150 in C.S. Plot NO.511/1248 was under the possession of Smti. Malati Bala Ghosh, present plaintiff as an allottee, but that order is silent as to when the said plot was allotted in favour of Smti Ghosh. Plaintiff submitted 2(two) numbers of allottee khatin i.e Exbt.2 & 2 in support of her plea that those plots were allotted and was finally published in khatian in her favour. But no allotment order is submitted in referenced to the aforesaid plots. Even plaintiff’s evidence as well as pleadings are silent what quantum of land was allotted in the 1974 and what quantum of land was allotted in the year 1982 out of total suit land. However, Exbt.1 shows that plot No.511/1 for land measuring .20 acres was allotted in favour of the plaintiff, but there is no evidence as to how the said plot No.511/1 is connected with aforesaid 3(three) numbers of suit plots. On the other hand defendants submitted certified copy of C.S. Khatian No.201 finally published in the year 1965 to show that original plot No.511 (Sabek) was recorded in favour of the Forest Department as an allottee. There cannot be any doubt that all the sub plots i.e. 511/1248 and 511/1249 are originated from original plot No.511. Then the question arises if the entire land under original plot No.511 was allotted in favour of Forest Department in the year 1965 then how the sub plots under said original plot was allotted in favour of plaintiff in the year 1974 and 1982 respectively. There is no evidence on record that allotment made in favour of Forest Department was cancelled subsequently, prior to the allotment in favour of the plaintiff. If I believe that record of rights in favour of the plaintiff was correctly prepared on the basis of allotment order then there is nothing to disbelieve that the plot No.511 was allotted in favour of the Forest Department and record of right was finally published consequent to the said allotment vide khatian No.201 of mouja Kariamura.” 8. Having returned the said finding, the trial court dismissed the suit by the judgment dated 22.09.2010. Having returned the said finding, the trial court dismissed the suit by the judgment dated 22.09.2010. Being aggrieved thereby, the plaintiff preferred an appeal in the court of the District Judge, being Title Appeal No.34 of 2010. By the impugned judgment dated 20.04.2013, the judgment and order passed by the trial court was set aside on returning the following observations: “From the discussion made above over these issues, it is abundantly clear that the plaintiff-appellant acquired right, title and interest over the suit land measuring 2.53 acres on the strength of allottee khatian No.654 and 454. Both the documentary evidence and oral evidence convincingly proved the status of plaintiff-appellant as the title holder over the suit land. It is found that the respondents have no authority to disturb the plaintiff-appellant.” As consequence thereof, the appellants have been permanently restrained from entering into the suit land or to disturb the peaceful possession of the plaintiff-respondent over the suit land. The said judgment is under challenge in this appeal. 9. It would be relevant to note that the first appellate court has observed as under: “Learned counsel of the respondents argued that the disputes cropped up over the dag No.511. From the appreciation of the evidence, learned court below concluded that dag No.511/1248 and 511/1249 attracts original plot No.511 of Mouja-Karaimura. So, the land is actually belonged to the forest department and not to the plaintiff-appellant. Learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division) came to the findings only on the basis of Exbt.A, Khatian No.201. It was the certified copy of the finally published khatian in the year, 1963. Forest Department is not made party in this case and from the scrutiny of the khatian it is found that, total land under dag No.511 is 9.67 acres. Allotment order passed in favour of Smti. Malati Bala Ghosh speaks about the land measuring 0.20 acres under dag No.511/1. The allottee khatian in the name of the plaintiff-appellant Malati Bala Ghosh is for land 0.32 acres. On the subject matter of demarcation case was considered by the S.D.O. Vide Exbt.4 series. Revenue case was filed but by the order of the revenue collector (Exbt.5), the claim of the defendant-respondents was rejected. From the order of the Collector No.1150, C.S. Plot No.511/1248 recorded in allottee khatian No.454 in favour of Malati Bala Ghosh. Respondents could not produce any evidence to deny the title of Malati Bala Ghosh. Revenue case was filed but by the order of the revenue collector (Exbt.5), the claim of the defendant-respondents was rejected. From the order of the Collector No.1150, C.S. Plot No.511/1248 recorded in allottee khatian No.454 in favour of Malati Bala Ghosh. Respondents could not produce any evidence to deny the title of Malati Bala Ghosh. Plaintiff-appellant produced allottee khatian No.654 for land measuring 0.32 acres. Another Khatian vide No.454, total land shown measuring 2.21 acres under dag No.511/1248, 511/1249. Both the khatians are allottee khatian and record of rights was finally published in the year, 1987 in the name of Malati Bala Ghosh. So, total land under both the khatians is 2.53 acres. It is true that khatian cannot create any title or extinguish the title, but the khatian prepared is a allottee khatian. Learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division) concluded that the khatian comes out from the land under dag No.511 for which already khatian (Exbt.A) prepared in the name of forest department. Learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division) relied on Exbt.A, khatian in the name of forest department but did not rely on the allotment order and allottee khatian in the name of Malati Bala Gthosh. Whether the khatian in the name of forest department (Exbt.A) stands good in the year, 1987 and when allottee khatian was prepared in favour of Malati Bala Ghosh, not clarified at all. Forest Department was also not made party in this case. Nothing written in column No.23 about possession of the respondents over that land. Learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division) viewed that when there was no evidence about the division of plot No.511, so it cannot be said that the khatian prepared in the name of Malati Bala Ghosh and had any basis. He found it difficult to separate the plots from the boundary without report of the survey commissioner. It is true that both the khatian are admissible being certified copy but weightage should not be given to one i.e. Exbt.A, khatian No.201. Chain of title in the name of forest department might be missing but if the allotment authority decided the title of the plaintiff-appellant, court cannot presume contrary. As per Section 43 (3) of the TLR & LR ActEvery entry in the record of rights as finally published shall, until the contrary is proved, be presumed to be correct. Chain of title in the name of forest department might be missing but if the allotment authority decided the title of the plaintiff-appellant, court cannot presume contrary. As per Section 43 (3) of the TLR & LR ActEvery entry in the record of rights as finally published shall, until the contrary is proved, be presumed to be correct. On perusal of the documentary as well as oral evidence it is abundantly clear that plaintiff-appellant had been possessing the suit land and the same was allotted in her favour and record of rights also created. The correctness of the entry in the allottee khatian, the record of rights can only be rebutted by better evidence from the side of the defendant-respondents but defendant-respondents failed to rebut it by convincing evidence. Therefore, the plaintiff-appellant is considered to be the allottee of the land on the strength of finally published khatian and also the allotment order. On the other hand, it is abundantly clear that respondent acquired no right, title and interest over the suit land on the strength of Exbt.A because khatian shows in the name of forest department. Therefore, this issue is also not correctly decided by the Learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division).” 10. Mr. A. De, learned counsel appearing for the appellants has submitted that the plaintiff-respondent was never in possession. On the contrary, the land which the plaintiff respondent has claimed to have been allotted to her, was earlier allotted to the Forest Department for purpose of conserving the reserve forest. The defendant-appellants claimed to have been possessing the suit land adversely against the true owner, the Forest Department which is not party in the suit. Their defence is of adverse possession, nothing else. The admitted position is that Forest Department was not made party by the plaintiff-respondent, for obvious reason since her claim was based on the title which she acquired qua the allotment order. There is no challenge against the said allotment order from any quarters as yet. 11. Mr. S.M. Chakraborty, learned senior counsel appearing for the plaintiff-respondent has emphatically submitted that there is no foundation is support of the claim of the defendants. He has referred to the documents of the plaintiffs namely the order of allotment in favour of Malati Bala Ghosh [Exbt.1], the finally published khatian No.452 [Exbt.2], the finally published khatian No.654 [Exbt.3], the report of the Senior Surveyor Mr. He has referred to the documents of the plaintiffs namely the order of allotment in favour of Malati Bala Ghosh [Exbt.1], the finally published khatian No.452 [Exbt.2], the finally published khatian No.654 [Exbt.3], the report of the Senior Surveyor Mr. D.L. Dhar dated 24.01.1992 wherefrom it is found that the Surveyor surveyed the entire land comprised in C.S. Plot No.1147, 1145/2227 and 1150, classified as tilla, measuring 2.53 acre with the help of Sri S.C. Debnath, Sri Shanti Ghosh and Sankar Ghosh on 22.01.1992. He has recorded in the report that some neighbouring occupiers raised objection. The said report dated 24.01.1992 [Exbt.4, 2 sheets] has been introduced in the evidence. One person namely Shanti Ranjan Ghosh has claimed that he was possessing the land measuring 2.01 acre in R.S. Plot No.1150 [C.S. Plot No.511/1248] recorded in the allottee Khatian No.454 of Mouja-Karaiyamura, in favour of Malati Bala Ghosh. On the basis of his possession, the said land should have been recorded as under the occupation of said Shanti Ranjan Ghosh, 1st party in the proceeding under Section 95 of the TLR & LR Act, 1980 [vide REV case No.55 of 1996]. The report of the SDO has revealed that the land was under possession of Malati Bala Ghosh and the 1st party was attempting to dispossess her from the said land. Such contention was therefore not accepted for lack of evidence. From these records, according to Mr. Chakraborty, learned senior counsel, it is clear that Malati Bala Ghosh was in the possession of the suit land. Mr. Chakraborty, learned senior counsel has submitted that in support of title, the allotment order and khatian, recording the said allotment have been admitted in the evidence at the instance of the plaintiff-respondent and hence the first appellate court did not committed any illegality. 12. Mr. S.M. Chakraborty, learned senior counsel has further submitted that regarding the genuineness of power of attorney, the defendant-appellants did not raise any objection in their written statement and now they cannot be allowed to raise such controversy. Even no issue was insisted upon. This court has examined the evidence afresh and also appreciated the impugned judgment dated 20.04.2013. 12. Mr. S.M. Chakraborty, learned senior counsel has further submitted that regarding the genuineness of power of attorney, the defendant-appellants did not raise any objection in their written statement and now they cannot be allowed to raise such controversy. Even no issue was insisted upon. This court has examined the evidence afresh and also appreciated the impugned judgment dated 20.04.2013. It appears from the said judgment that the defendant-appellants have raised the objection in this regard, during the hearing of the first appeal and the said objection as reflected in the impugned judgment is as under: “Above all, the suit was filed by the attorney and the attorney is not authorized to give evidence to prove the plaintiff’s case.” 13. It is not the challenge against the genuineness of the deed of power of attorney. On the contrary, both the trial court and the first appellate court have decided that the attorney filed the suit for the cause which is indisputably related to threat of dispossession directly posed to the said attorney. It is to be noted here that by the deed of the power of attorney, the representation of the attorney for the plaintiff cannot be questioned by the defendant-appellants. Apart that, the title is based on the public documents within the meaning of Section-74 of the Evidence Act viz., the order of allotment and the finally published khatian. While admitting those public documents no objection was raised. Even such objection has not been raised in the appeal. So far the threat of dispossession is concerned, the said attorney is a competent witness because at the relevant point of time, he on the strength of the authority given by the plaintiff-respondent was in occupation of the suit land and he himself was threatened. Hence, no part of the attorney’s testimony can be held unauthorized or beyond his personal knowledge. The respondent’s title over the suit land has been well-proved and it has been proved in favour of the plaintiff-respondent by virtue of those public documents. No contrary evidence has been laid. Hence, no part of the attorney’s testimony can be held unauthorized or beyond his personal knowledge. The respondent’s title over the suit land has been well-proved and it has been proved in favour of the plaintiff-respondent by virtue of those public documents. No contrary evidence has been laid. The reference to the other khatian [Exbt.A Khatian No.201 of Mouja-Karaimura] to contend that the land covered by it is the reserve forest under the control of the Forest Department and as such allotment in favour the plaintiff is not tenable, cannot be accepted by this court for obvious reason that the defendant-appellants have failed to collate the khatians for that purpose. Even they did not insist for impleadment of the Forest Department, Government of Tripura. Thus the questions whether the said land was ever recorded as the reserve forest or whether the said land is attracted by Khatian No.201 or not remained not proved. So far the suit land is concerned, the evidentiary materials have been placed in the trial and those have satisfied the standard of preponderance of the probability. In the premises, this court is of the view that the finding in respect of title or possession as returned by the first appellate court does not suffer from any infirmity and as such, such finding is affirmed. It has been satisfactorily proved that the defendant-appellants have been possessing threat of dispossession, the decree of perpetual injunction as rightly been issued against the defendant-appellants by restraining them from disturbing the peaceful possession of the plaintiff-respondent over the suit land is liable to be affirmed. It is affirmed accordingly. 14. Having held so, this court does not find any substance in this appeal and accordingly the same is dismissed. Draw the decree accordingly. Send down the LCRs thereafter.