JUDGMENT & ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. D.K. Daschoudhury, learned counsel appearing for the appellants as well as Mr. G.S. Bhattacharji, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No. 1 and 2 and Mr. S. Bhattacharji, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3. 2. This is an appeal under Section 100 of the CPC from the judgment dated 22.04.2013 delivered in Title Appeals No. 23 and 24 of 2011. 3. At the time of admitting this appeal, the following substantial questions of law were formulated by this court for purpose of hearing this appeal by the order dated 24.03.2014 : "1. Whether the entries in the remark column of the record of right, in the name of the plaintiffs-appellants was sufficient to determine the right of the plaintiffs-appellants for the purpose of receiving the compensation awarded by the L.A. Collector in respect of the acquired suit land ? 2. Whether the Judgment & Decree passed by the 1st Appellate Court suffer from perversity ?" 4. Mr. D.K. Daschoudhury, learned counsel appearing for the appellants has submitted that the title of the appellants are not in dispute. As the Land Acquisition Collector, the LA Collector in short, denied them to pay the compensation for the acquisition on the basis of the entries made in the Column No. 24 of the Khatians denoting that transfer has been made against Section 107(d) of the TLR & LR Act, 1960. For illustration it may be observed that the appellant No. 5 namely Sri Girindra Nama has been recorded as Bargadar whereas one Sri Sundar Ali has been shown as the title holder in Khatian No. 432 (Exbt-7a). The other appellants are shown similarly in the column 24. Exbt- 7n series according to Mr. D.K. Das choudhury, learned counsel is the proof of the title of the appellants. As their land were acquired by the LA Collector under Case No. 10/U/2006 for construction of BSF Head Quarters under Mouza- Khupelong, Udaipur under Udaipur Subdivision but no notice under Section 9 of the LA Act was issued to them as the interested person. They filed the proper application to the LA Collector, South Tripura, Udaipur as it then was but without any avail. Thereafter, they issued the pre-requisite notice under Section 80 (1) of the CPC through their attorney namely Rabindra Kishore Jamatia and Bijoy Bhusan Das. The said notice was given by them on 01.06.2009. They filed the proper application to the LA Collector, South Tripura, Udaipur as it then was but without any avail. Thereafter, they issued the pre-requisite notice under Section 80 (1) of the CPC through their attorney namely Rabindra Kishore Jamatia and Bijoy Bhusan Das. The said notice was given by them on 01.06.2009. Though there is no reference in the notice of the deed of power of attorney, but in the record of evidence, one irrevocable power of attorney, authenticated by Mr. R.K. Das, the notary, South Tripura, is available. Those deeds of power of attorney are admitted in the evidence as Exbt-4 and 5. The attorney instituted the suit, but to support their claim of title they could not file anything more than Exbt-7 series. Admittedly in the column 24 of the Khatian some of the appellants have been recorded as the occupier on the strength of transfer caused contrary to the provisions of Section 107C of the Tripura Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act, 1960, as amended by the Tripura Land Revenue and Land Reforms (3rd Amendment) Act, 1975, whereby the Chapter IX A has been introduced. Section 107C therein provides that subject to the provisions of Section 131 of the Act any transfer of land by a person not belonging to the Scheduled Tribe within the village or tehsil specified in the Second Schedule, shall be void unless such transfer is made in accordance with the provisions of that Chapter. 5. Mr. Das Chowdhury, learned counsel has candidly submitted that the Civil Judge, Senior Division, South Tripura, Udaipur decreed the suit being TS 36 of 2009 on purported appreciation of the evidence and in pursuance of the judgment dated 13.09.2011. While deciding Issues No. 2 and 3 in respect of the right, title, interest and entitlement of compensation, the trial court has observed as under : "I have considered the evidence in record in the light of the argument made by the Ld. Counsels of both sides. I am of the opinion, the plaintiffs side have proved through its various exhibited documents that the land was shown to be transferred in favour of the plaintiff of this case, though it was transferred in contravention of the provisions of Section 107(c) of the TLR & LR Act or not. Counsels of both sides. I am of the opinion, the plaintiffs side have proved through its various exhibited documents that the land was shown to be transferred in favour of the plaintiff of this case, though it was transferred in contravention of the provisions of Section 107(c) of the TLR & LR Act or not. Now let us consider whether the transfer of land in favour of the plaintiffs of this case is found u/s 107(c) of the TLR & LR Act or not. It is an admitted fact that Section 107(c) of the TLR & LR Act came into force on the 27th February 1975. But the transfer of the land in favour of the plaintiffs of this case was made prior to 1975, hence, the transfer of land in favour of the plaintiffs of this case cannot be said to be hit by Section 107(c) of the TLR & LR Act. As the various exhibited documents of the plaintiff side, has clearly shown that the land was transferred in favour of the plaintiff side, and also as discussed above that such transfer of land in favour of the plaintiffs of the case is not hit by section 107(c) of the TLR & LR Act. Hence, the plaintiffs of this case have acquired their right, title and interest over the various plots of land as discussed in this issue. As the plaintiffs side have proved their right, title and interest hence they are also entitled for the compensation money." 6. Having held thus, the suit was decreed. The said judgment dated 30.09.2011 delivered in TS 36 of 2009 was challenged by the respondents herein namely the State of Tripura and the Land Acquisition Collector, South Tripura, Udaipur, by filing an appeal under Section 96 of the CPC being Title Appeal No. 24 of 2012. Another appeal was also filed by the respondent No.3 against the said judgment being Title Appeal No. 23 of 2011. Both the appeals were allowed by the impugned judgment dated 22.04.2013 by reversing the finding as reproduced above and holding that : "10. From the evidence on record it is transpired that the plaintiff-respondents are the legal heirs and also the person in possession of some of the property acquired. Both the appeals were allowed by the impugned judgment dated 22.04.2013 by reversing the finding as reproduced above and holding that : "10. From the evidence on record it is transpired that the plaintiff-respondents are the legal heirs and also the person in possession of some of the property acquired. So, they are considered as persons interested, even though they were treated as the interested person but they were not paid the compensation as according to the Land Acquisition Collector they failed to prove their title over the acquired land. Right, title and interest over the suit property by the plaintiff-respondents was not established by convincing evidence. Only remarks given in column No. 24 cannot create any title. Only a person having transferable title can transfer the title by execution of registered deed, which is not proved in this case. There is no other evidence except the remarks of the revenue authority to establish the right, title and interest of the plaintiff-respondents. It is true that some of them were found in possession and considered as persons interested to get the compensation amount. They are not entitled to get compensation as they are only the owner and title holder [sic] and the persons interested as possessor. The title and ownership never admitted by the appellants. So, the declaration of right, title and interest as given by the learned court below was not proper. The appeals, therefore, have merit." Having returned such finding, the judgment passed by the trial court has been set aside. Hence this appeal under Section 100 of the CPC. 7. While appreciating the records, particularly the plaint, this court has found that even there is no pleading when the land was purchased and from whom they purchased the land. For purpose of reference the relevant part is extracted hereunder: "That the plaintiffs were the owners in possessions of the lands described and mentioned in the Schedule below of this plaint by purchase since and prior to 1969, 1970, 1971 AD and earlier then 1975 AD which fact is recognized and admitted even by defendants in departmental papers and files, which came out through the Departmental field enquiries conducted by the appropriate authority of the Land Acquisition Department and Govt. in order for acquisition of the lands for public purposes." Except this pleading there is no other pleadings to support the title by the plaintiff or to prove that there are some entries in the government papers viz. Exbt-7 series. There are remarks admittedly under the Column-24 of the Khatian concerned and the remarks are very categorical. They are in the possession from much before 1975. The transfer according to them, is wholly illegal in view of Section 107C of the TLR & LR Act, 1960. 8. It is really surprising that on the basis of such pleading and the evidence as advanced by the appellants, the trial court had returned that the plaintiffs [the appellants herein] had the title over the acquired land. Even if, the entire entry is presumed to be correct for purpose of drawing presumption under Section 43(3) of the TLR & LR Act, then also it cannot be presumed that the appellants had title on the acquired land. When the entry has been clearly made that the transfer as made was in contravention to the provisions of Section 107C of the TLR & LR Act, the presumption would be that the transfer was illegal in view of contravention of Section 107C of the TLR & LR Act. Thus, this court does not find any difficulty to hold that there is no infirmity in the finding of the first appellate court as returned by the impugned judgment. 9. Mr. D.K. Daschoudhury, learned counsel has raised an ancillary question which are not within the ambit of the substantial question of law, but for fair ends of justice this court finds it apposite to make reference and lay the decision on it. Mr. Daschoudhury, learned counsel has submitted further that there was no challenge against the finding on title by the defendant and hence, the said finding reached to its finality. The first appellate court ought not have reversed the said finding in respect of the title. When this court scrutinized the challenge in the memorandum of appeal it transpired that the respondents No. 1 and 2 had taken the grounds of objection that the title as declared by the trial court is wholly unsustainable in view of Section 107C of the TLR & LR Act. On the face of the records this submission cannot be entertained. When this court scrutinized the challenge in the memorandum of appeal it transpired that the respondents No. 1 and 2 had taken the grounds of objection that the title as declared by the trial court is wholly unsustainable in view of Section 107C of the TLR & LR Act. On the face of the records this submission cannot be entertained. Even if it is assumed that such grounds of objection were not raised, the appellate court has the power to interfere. The appellate court is wielded with power to interfere as provided under Rule 33, Order XLI provides as under : "33. Power of Court of Appeal ---- The Appellate Court shall have power to pass any decree and make any order which ought to have been passed or made and to pass or made such further or other decree or order as the case may require, and this power may be exercised by the Court notwithstanding that the appeal is as to part only of the decree and may be exercised in favour of all or any of the respondents or parties, although such respondents or parties may not have filed any appeal or objection [and may, where there have been decrees in cross-suits or where two or more decrees are passed in one suit, be exercised in respect of all or any of the decrees, although an appeal may not have been filed against such decrees]: [Provided that the Appellate Court shall not make any order under section 35A, in pursuance of any objection on which the Court from whose decree the appeal is preferred has omitted or refused to make such order.]." Thus, there is no substance in this appeal and accordingly, the same is dismissed. Draw the decree accordingly and thereafter send down the LCRs.