JUDGMENT AND ORDER : Heard Mr. D. Deb, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff-appellants as well as Mr. P. Datta, learned counsel appearing for the defendant-respondents. 2. The parties in the suit being the plaintiffs and the defendants have filed the memorandum of settlement contained in I.A. 1599 of 2016 arising from RSA 11 of 2013 containing the terms and conditions of settlement as struck amongst themselves outside the court. The terms and conditions, as referred are as under : “(i) That, by this compromise the plaintiff-appellants recognize that the defendant respondent, Sri Ramprasad Dey is the absolute owner and peaceful possessor of the suit land measuring 1(one) kani 8(eight) gandas under Haal Dag Nos. 2572, 2573 and 2583 of Khatian No. 1703/2 of Mouja Charipara under Tehsil Badharghat, the details of which have been described in the plaint of TS 19 of 2008 as well as in the present compromise petition. (ii) That, though the names of the plaintiff-appellants and pro-defendant-respondents have been recorded in column No. 24 in the Khatian no. 1703/2 against Haal Dag Nos. 2572, 2573 and 2583 as permissive possessors by this compromise they have handed over the possession of the suit land measuring 1 kani 8 gandas to the defendant-respondent. (iii) That, by this compromise the plaintiff-appellants and the pro-defendant-respondents will have no claim over the suit land and they will have no objection if the defendant- respondent makes correction of the record of rights, the Khatian No. 1703/2 by deleting the names of the plaintiff- appellants and pro-defendant-respondents from column No. 24 of the said Khatian from the competent Revenue Authority and transfers the suit land by sale, gift to others. (iv) That, the plaintiff-appellants and the proforma-defendant-respondents or their heir or heirs by this compromise will have no claim or objection in respect of the suit land. If any claim or objection is raised in future then the plaintiff appellants as well as the proforma-defendant- respondents and their heir or heirs will be held liable to pay the compensation the defendant-respondents. (v) That, following the terms and conditions of compromise the plaintiff-appellants are not willing to proceed with the present second appeal and prays for the disposal of the case on compromise. 3. The suit was filed by the plaintiff-appellants herein for declaration of title and permanent injunction. (v) That, following the terms and conditions of compromise the plaintiff-appellants are not willing to proceed with the present second appeal and prays for the disposal of the case on compromise. 3. The suit was filed by the plaintiff-appellants herein for declaration of title and permanent injunction. The plaintiff averred in the plaint that the suit land as described in the schedule of the plaint was acquired by way of exchange by one Nagendra Chandra Sarkar who died long before the institution of the suit. The plaintiff no. 1 is Nagendra’s son whereas the plaintiff no. 2 is Nagendra’s wife. After death of Nagendra Chandra Sarkar, the plaintiff became the absolute owners in possession of the suit land along with the proforma defendant respondents, namely Smt. Putul Sarkar, Smt. Pratima Sarkar and Smt. Anita Sarkar. In the first week of November, 1988, the defendant-respondent no.1 according to the plaintiffs, raided in the suit land with intention to dispossess them but for their resistance, the said defendant- respondent was not successful in his bid and as such, based on the title and possession, the suit was filed for declaration of title, confirmation of possession and the permanent injunction, as consequential relief. 4. The defendant-respondent by filing the written statement contested the averments by claiming his title over the suit land. He had further claimed that he is in possession of the suit land in question. According to him, the suit land belonged to one Malina Deb, widow of Anil Deb by virtue of succession as a sole legal heir of said Anil Deb who acquired the share as the legal heir of Banka Chandra Deb @ Banka Bihari Deb. According to the said defendant-respondent Malina Deb, executed her Will under No. III-219 dated 30.09.1994 and on the basis of the said Will the said defendants got the said land mutated in his name. Thus, the plaintiffs are not the real owners. He had further asserted that for correction of the record, the plaintiffs instituted a proceeding under Section 95 of the TLR and LR Act being Revenue case No. 02 of 2001. By the final order dated 16.09.2003, it has been also held that the defendant is the real owner and possessor of the said land and the said order dated 16.09.2003 was never challenged by the plaintiffs. By the final order dated 16.09.2003, it has been also held that the defendant is the real owner and possessor of the said land and the said order dated 16.09.2003 was never challenged by the plaintiffs. According to him, the allegation of raiding the suit land for purpose of dispossessing the plaintiffs is wholly a figment of imagination, inasmuch as, the said defendant-respondent was all through in possession. 5. Be that as it may, after framing the issues based on the conflicting pleadings, the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Bishalgarh, West Tripura by the judgment dated 27.05.2011 as delivered in the said Title Suit being T.S. 19 of 2008 held that the plaintiffs and the proforma defendants are the owners of the suit land and they were on possession on the date of institution of the suit. Hence, by a decree he declared their title, confirmed their possession and issued further the decree of perpetual injunction. 6. Being aggrieved by that judgment dated 27.05.2011, the defendant-respondents filed an appeal under Section 96 of the CPC being Title Appeal No. 47 of 2011 in the court of the District Judge, West Tripura, Agartala. By the impugned judgment dated 04.10.2012, the District Judge, West Tripura, Agartala having observed that there is no evidence from the plaintiffs in respect of identify the suit land even though a good number of witnesses were examined regarding the change in the physical boundary by passage of time. So, in absence of any such specific evidence, it cannot be certainly opined that the boundary description was correctly given in the plaint. The defendant no. 1 has proved the certified copy of the map of the suit land which showed a road on the western side of the suit land, but in the plaint-schedule no such road is in the western side of the suit land. Thus, the boundary description of the suit land is apparently irrelevant. As the location of the suit property could not be established by the plaintiff, the first appellate court took the view that on an unidentifiable land, the ownership cannot be declared and hence the suit was dismissed by the impugned judgment and decree. 7. During pendency, the said settlement has been struck out between the plaintiff and the defendant, in particular and there is no objection from the proforma respondents also. Thus, Mr. 7. During pendency, the said settlement has been struck out between the plaintiff and the defendant, in particular and there is no objection from the proforma respondents also. Thus, Mr. D. Deb, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff-appellant and Mr. P. Datta, learned counsel appearing for the said defendant no. 1-respondent have submitted that the memorandum of settlement as extracted in I.A. No.1599 of 2016 [from RSA 11 of 2013] has been voluntarily arrived at and such conditions as reduced there are not in conflict with any law and as such the Memorandum of Settlement is in no way has failed to overcome the test of Section 23 of Indian Contract Act and there is no other basis which may impede this court from accepting this settlement as reached between the parties. Both of them have prayed that the said I.A. No. 1599 of 2016 arising from RSA 11 of 2013 as a whole be made part of the decree which is contemplated to be passed as the decree on compromise. 8. Having due scrutiny of the Memorandum of Settlement, as recorded in I.A. No. 1599 of 2016 arising from RSA 11 of 2013, this court finds that there is no unlawfulness in the said settlement and hence the settlement is accepted by this court, in consequence thereof, this appeal is allowed on compromise. Prepare the compromise decree in terms of the settlement as provided in I.A. No. 1599 of 2016 arising from RSA 11 of 2013. 9. In the result, the impugned judgment dated 04.10.2012 is, therefore, affirmed. 10. Copy of the I.A. No. 1599 of 2016 shall be made part of the decree. Send down the records after drawing up the decree in terms of the above.