JUDGMENT & ORDER : This second appeal is directed against the appellate judgment and decree dated 31.05.2007 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Court No.4, Agartala, West Tripura in Title Appeal No.33 of 2005 whereunder the original judgment and decree dated 30.06.2005 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Court No.2, West Tripura, Agartala in Title Suit 14 of 2001 has been set aside and consequently the suit was dismissed. 2. Heard learned senior counsel, Mr. D Chakraborty assisted by learned counsel, Mr. H Laskar for the appellants and learned counsel, Mr. PK Dhar for respondent Nos. 1(a) to 1(f), 3&4 and learned counsel, Mr. D Bhattacharji for the respondent No.2. 3. Shorn of unnecessary details, the predecessor of appellant No.1A to 1B along with appellant Nos. 2 to 5, as plaintiffs, (hereinafter mentioned as plaintiffs) instituted Title Suit No. 14 of 2001 in the Court of Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Agartala seeking declaration of title, confirmation of possession and permanent injunction in respect of the suit land described in the schedule of the plaint against Smt. Arun Bala Banik, since deceased and the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 as defendants (hereinafter mentioned as defendants) originally seeking declaration of and confirmation of possession as well as permanent injunction in respect of the suit land but ultimately by way of amendment of the plaint sought for the following reliefs: 1. For declaration that the plaintiffs have acquired the right of easement of necessity over the suit path described in the schedule ‘B’ of the plaint; AND 2. For confirmation of possession of the plaintiffs over the suit path; AND 3. For perpetual injunction restraining the defendants and their agents, workman and any other person or persons acting on their behalf from creating disturbance in the peaceful use of the suit path by the plaintiffs as an access to their dwelling house in schedule ‘A’ of the plaint. 4. The plaintiffs contended that one Gobinda Ch Bhattacharjee was the original owner of 11 gandas 2 krantas and 18 dhurs of land appertaining to Khatian No. 1828, CS Plot No. 4688 of Mouja Agartala, Sheet No.6. Gobinda Bhattacharjee by executing sale deed No. 17399 dated 12.08.1964 sold out 3 gandas of land to one Nani Bala Banik out of the plot No. 4688 on the south eastern part of the plot and delivered possession to Nani Bala. Gobinda Bhattacharjee by executing sale deed No. 17399 dated 12.08.1964 sold out 3 gandas of land to one Nani Bala Banik out of the plot No. 4688 on the south eastern part of the plot and delivered possession to Nani Bala. The rest of the land remained under the ownership and possession of Gobinda Ch. Bhattacharjee and he by executing a gift deed No, 110490 dated 30th November, 1970 gifted the land to his son Gouranga Ch. Bhattacharjee and delivered possession thereof to the donee. Gouranga Ch. Bhattacharjee thereby became the owner of the land and he gifted the said land to Makhan Lal Bhattacharjee by deed No. 17756 dated 18th December, 1985. From Makhan Lal Bhattacharjee the plaintiffs purchased the suit land by three separate deeds dated 12.01.2000 and got possession thereof. The suit land described in schedule B of the plaint is a pathway measuring 205 sq. ft. which corresponds to 2 kranta 17 dhurs of land and that was used as a pathway by the original jotedar, his successors as well as the defendants and their predecessors. The defendants obstructed the plaintiffs in using the suit pathway and therefore the plaintiffs originally instituted the suit seeking declaration of right, title, interest and perpetual injunction over the suit land but thereafter amended the suit as stated hereinbefore. 5. The defendants contested the suit by filing joint written statement, inter alia, contending that the original jotedar Gobinda Ch. Bhattacharjee sold out three gandas of land to Nani Bala and it was muted in the name of Nani Bala. Nani Bala thereafter sold out the purchased land to Parimal Talapatra on 06.05.1970 and that Parimal sold the said land to Smt. Arun Bala Banik (since deceased), the defendant No.1, on 30.06.1973. There was no existence of that B schedule land as a pathway and that it was within the purchased 3 gandas of land of Arun Bala Banik. The purchased land of Arun Bala was mutated in her name and the Khatian and survey map prepared by the revenue authority clearly shows the plot No. 4688/33518 which covers the suit land and so the plaintiffs have no right to claim B schedule land as a pathway to be used by them for the ingress and egress to their purchased land. The defendants, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the suit. 6. The defendants, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the suit. 6. The trial court considering the pleadings of the parties framed the following five issues: i. Is the suit maintainable in law? ii. Is the suit barred by the principle of resjudicata? iii. Have the plaintiffs acquired right of easement of necessity over the suit path described in schedule ‘B’ of the plaint? iv. Are the plaintiffs entitled to the decree as prayed for? v. To what relief/reliefs the parties are entitled? 7. In course of trial, the plaintiff No.4 examined himself as PW1 and also examined two more witnesses in support of their case and proved the following documents: Exbt.1 The original gift deed dated 30.11.1970 Exbt.2 The original gift deed dated 18.12.1985 Exbt.3 The original registered sale deed dated 12.01.2000. Exbt.4 The original registered sale deed dated 12.01.2000 bearing No.1315. Exbt.5 The original registered sale deed dated 12.01.2000 bearing No. 1-316 Exbt.6 The original rent receipt Exbt.7 Another original rent receipt, Exbt.8 The certified true copy of registered sale deed dated 12.08.1964 Exbt.9 The certified true copy of registered sale deed dated 06.05.1970. 8. The defendant No.2 examined himself as DW1 and also examined two more witnesses and proved the following documents in support of their case – Exbt.A The original municipal assessment note dated 05.02.1974. Exbt.B series Original Municipal Tax Receipts (eight sheets) Exbt.C series Original revenue receipts (six sheets) Exbt.D the certified true copy of Khatian No. 14239 Exbt.E Khatian in the name of Nani Bala Banik. Exbt.F series Khatian No. 1976 (two sheets). Exbt.G Certified true copy of sale deed in the name of Nani Bala Banik Exbt.H The original sale deed in the name of Arun Bala Banik Exbt. I The original sale deed in the name of Parimal Talapatra Exbt.J The certified true copy of the map of the mouja­Agartala Exbt.K Certified true copy of a finally published map Exbt.L certified true copy of judgment dated 30.01.1978 passed in TS 8/74 Exbt.M series Certified true copy of order dated 21.05.1988 with compromise petition and the decree drawn in T.S. 58/74 T.S.120/84 Exbt.N The certified true copy of sale deed in the name of Parswanath Roy. Exbt.O series The certified true copy of order dated 01.08.2001 passed in Case No. NGR 398(Ex)/01 with orders up to 30.01.2002 and copy of prosecution report. Exbt.P The attested copy of Khatian bearing No.13239. Exbt.O series The certified true copy of order dated 01.08.2001 passed in Case No. NGR 398(Ex)/01 with orders up to 30.01.2002 and copy of prosecution report. Exbt.P The attested copy of Khatian bearing No.13239. Exbt.Q The certified true copy of map of last survey settlement. Exbt. R The certified true copy of judgment dated 22.08.1984 passed in T.A. 4/81. 9. In course of trial, a Survey Commissioner was appointed to determine the following three points: (i) Who is in possession of the suit land? (ii) Mode of possession? (iii) What are the documents on which the suit land is being possessed and whose documents attract the suit land? 10. The Survey Commissioner submitted his report after physical verification and the report was accepted affording opportunity of hearing to both sides which was marked as Exhibit-C1. 11. Considering the pleadings and evidence on record including that of the report of the Survey Commissioner, the trial court decided the issues in favour of the plaintiffs and decreed the suit in the following terms: “In the result, the suit is decreed on contest but without cost. It is hereby declared that the plaintiffs have acquired the right of easement of necessity over the suit path described in schedule ‘B’ of the plaint. It is further ordered that the defendants, their agents, workmen and any person acting on their behalf are perpetually restrained from creating any disturbance in the peaceful use of the suit path by the plaintiffs as their access to the purchased land mentioned in schedule ‘A’ of the plaint.” 12. Aggrieved, the defendants filed Title Appeal No. 33 of 2005 challenging the judgment and decree passed by the trial court and by the impugned judgment dated 31.05.2007 learned Addl. District Judge allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment and decree dated 30.06.2005 passed by the trial court and hence this second appeal. 13. The second appeal was admitted for hearing on the following substantial questions of law: “(a) Was the first appellate court right in relying upon the compromise decree (Ext.M) while reversing the decision of the trial court? (b) Whether the first appellate court was right in holding that the suit was hit by principles of res judicata in view of the order dated 30.11.2004 passed in CRP No.23 of 2004? (b) Whether the first appellate court was right in holding that the suit was hit by principles of res judicata in view of the order dated 30.11.2004 passed in CRP No.23 of 2004? (c) Whether the first appellate court was also right in holding that the amendment of the plaint was invalid?” 14. In course of hearing, learned senior counsel Mr. Charkaborty prayed for abandoning the substantial question No. (b) and (c) and prayed for framing another substantial question of law that the appellate judgment suffers from perversity for not considering the material evidence on record. 15. After hearing learned counsel of both side, I am of the considered opinion that a further substantial question of law may be formulated for proper decision of the appeal and accordingly, the following substantial question of law is formulated: “Whether the judgment and decree passed by the appellate court in Title Appeal No.33/2005 suffers from perversity for non consideration of the evidence on record.” 16. Gobinda Ch. Bhattacharjee was the original jotedar of the suit land which is described as the pathway as well as the land purchased by the plaintiffs and the defendants, is an admitted position. It is also not in dispute that plot No. 4689 of Mouja Agartala, sheet No.6 is a pathway (lane) connecting the land of Gobinda Ch. Bhattacharjee and the land belonging to other neighbouring land holders with the office lane situated to the western direction. It was argued by learned senior counsel, Mr. Chakraborty that Gobinda Ch. Bhattacharjee sold out exactly 3 gandas of land to Nanibala Dey in the south eastern part of his land, i.e. plot No.4688 and the remaining land remained with the jotedar Gobinda Bhattacharjee. The boundary given in the sale deed was: North – Land of Gobinda Ch. Bhattacharjee, South – Dwelling house of Kalipada Banerjee, East – Nani Charkaborty, and West – Land of Gobinda Ch. Bhattacharjee. It was therefore clear from the boundary description that to the west of the sold out land Gobinda Bhattacharjee had remaining land of plot No. 4688. The boundary given in the sale deed was: North – Land of Gobinda Ch. Bhattacharjee, South – Dwelling house of Kalipada Banerjee, East – Nani Charkaborty, and West – Land of Gobinda Ch. Bhattacharjee. It was therefore clear from the boundary description that to the west of the sold out land Gobinda Bhattacharjee had remaining land of plot No. 4688. He has also submitted that with the same boundary description Nani Bala sold to Parimal Talapatra on 06.05.1970 and then Parimal sold to defendant No. 1, Arun Bala Banik on 30.06.1993 and therefore, it was crystal clear that to the west of sold out land there was land of plot No. 4688 belonging to Gobinda Bhattachgarjee touching the pathway (lane) recorded as plot No. 4689. 17. It was also argued by Mr. Chakraborty, learned senior counsel that Arun Bala Banik at the time of creation of Khatian and Map included the B schedule land in her purchased land wrongly which is evident from the documents itself. The appellate court failed to consider that aspect and totally failed to appreciate documentary evidence and arrived at a wrong and perverse finding. 18. Learned counsel, Mr. Dhar and learned counsel, Mr. Bhattacharjee submitted that after purchase Nani Bala mutated the land in her name and accordingly Khatian No. 14239 was created in her name for 3 gandas of land. Parimal Talapatra purchased from Nani Bala and Arun Bala purchased from Parimal. Khatian was prepared in the name of Arun Bala for that 3 ganda of land, i.e. khatian No. 14239 in the year 1974 and that khatian is marked as exhibit D. So, while that khatian is finally published it has a presumptive value and the map prepared at the time of settlement operation shows that the B schedule land is within the purchased land of the defendant Arun Bala Banik. While it was recorded within the purchased land of Arun Bala Banik, the plaintiffs cannot maintain the suit without changing the record of right which has a presumptive value. 19. According to Mr. Dhar and Mr. Bhattacharjee it was the duty of the plaintiffs to verify the land before purchase. Though they mentioned that there was earlier suit between Gournaga Bhattacharjee and Arun Bala and that was compromised. 19. According to Mr. Dhar and Mr. Bhattacharjee it was the duty of the plaintiffs to verify the land before purchase. Though they mentioned that there was earlier suit between Gournaga Bhattacharjee and Arun Bala and that was compromised. So while that compromise decree prevails the plaintiffs have no right to claim that the B schedule land was a pathway or that they have purchased it from Makhan Lal. It was also argued by Mr. Dhar and Mr. Bhattacharjee that neither Gouranga nor Makhan Lal were examined by the plaintiffs to show that B schedule land was a pathway and it was not sold to the defendant Arun Bala or that they have purchased it. The alleged purchased land of the plaintiffs has not been mutated in their name and therefore they even cannot claim any right by necessity and prescription. The compromise decree cannot be questioned by the plaintiffs and they have practically not questioned the decree in their pleadings but the trial court wrongly arrived at a finding that the compromise decree was confusing. The finding of the trial court therefore rightly interfered by the appellate court and in the second appeal that finding may not be disturbed. They have also argued that the Survey Commissioner’s report cannot be the basis of arriving at a conclusion that B Schedule land was not the purchased land of the defendant Arun Bala. The Survey Commissioner mechanically submitted the report and the appellate court therefore discarded it rightly. 20. It is an admitted position that Gournaga Bhattacharjee instituted Title Suit No. 58 of 1974 which was subsequently renumbered as Title Suit No. 120 of 1984 in respect of the record of right prepared in the name of Arun Bala showing the present B schedule land in plot No. 4688/33518. The Khatian and map exhibited on behalf of the defendant i.e. exhibit D as well as exhibit J and exhibit K show the plot No. 4688/33518 included the present suit pathway in the purchased land of the defendant Arun Bala. Whereas, after going through the purchase deed of Arun Bala and her predecessors, i.e. Parimal and Nani Bala, which are marked as exhibit G, H & I, I find that identical boundary was mentioned in the western side as the land of Gobinda Bhattacharjee, i.e. the original jotedar. Whereas, after going through the purchase deed of Arun Bala and her predecessors, i.e. Parimal and Nani Bala, which are marked as exhibit G, H & I, I find that identical boundary was mentioned in the western side as the land of Gobinda Bhattacharjee, i.e. the original jotedar. There was no mention of the pathway recorded in plot No. 4689 in the western boundary. Had Gobinda Bhattacharjee sold the suit land to Nani Bala, in that case, in the boundary description he would not have written his own land in the western boundary and the predecessor Nani Bala would not also accept it. From the three sale deeds, it is crystal clear that in the western boundary of purchased land of Nani Bala, there was further land of plot No. 4688 belonging to Gobinda Bhattacharji. Parimal purchased from Nani Bala by exhibit I with the same boundary description and Arun Bala purchased from Parimal by Exhibit H with the same boundary description. It is not understood how at the time of settlement the present suit land, i.e. land described as pathway was included in the purchased land of Arun Bala. 21. Let us now see the other part of the fact. The plaintiffs did not mutate their purchased land and no khatian in their names was prepared. It was the duty of the plaintiffs to approach the revenue authority for mutation of their purchased land but they did not do so. It is a fact that they have also not examined their predecessor Makhan Lal as witness. The defendants contended that the gift deeds dated 30.11.1970 and 18.12.1985, i.e. exhibit No. 1&2 were fake documents but that argument cannot be accepted since it is the case of the defendants also that Gournaga instituted a suit against Arun Bala and that suit was compromised by a compromise decree marked exhibitM series. So the plea of the defendants that the gifts were fake cannot be accepted. It is no doubt a lapse on the part of the plaintiffs that they did not mutate the purchased land but for their failure to mutate the purchased land, their title will not abolish or extinguish unless it is otherwise proved that they acquired no title over the purchased land. The question here is to decide as to whether the pathway described in schedule B of the plaint is actually a pathway or not. The question here is to decide as to whether the pathway described in schedule B of the plaint is actually a pathway or not. There is no record that it is a pathway, rather it is shown in the name of the defendant Arun Bala in her Khatian and map in plot No. 4688/33518. Arun Bala did not raise any counter claim that B schedule land is her purchased jote land. The defendants heavily relied on the survey khatian and map since it has not been challenged. No doubt it has a presumptive value that the record of right is in the name of Arun Bala. Question which was decided by the trial court is that it is a pathway used by the defendants as well as the plaintiffs and their predecessors. 22. The trial court observed that the compromise decree was confusing. From the pleadings and evidence on record I find that T.S. 58/1974 which was renumbered as T.S. 120/1984 was partly decreed and thereafter an appeal was filed and the suit was remanded back with a direction to appoint a survey commissioner and to ascertain the purchased land of Arun Bala as well as the allotted pathway but that was not done and on the basis of a joint petition filed by the plaintiff and the defendant of that suit it was disposed of in terms of compromise. Exhibit M series consist of the compromise petition which was made part of the decree and it reads as follows: “58 T.S. of 1974 Title Suit No.120 of 1984 Sri Gouranga Bhattacharjee - Plaintiff Vs. Smti. Arun Bala Banik and Others - Defendants The Plaintiffs and Defendants named above beg to state as follows: 1. That the Plaintiff instituted Title Suit No.58 of 1974 against the Defendants including their predecessor-in-interest in the court of Ld. Sadar Munsiff, Agartala, West Tripura for declaration of Plaintiff’s jote right in the suit lands of schedule ‘I’ and ‘II’ of the plaint, confirmation of possession and permanent injunction restraining the Defendants from entering into the suit land and other reliefs. 2. That after contested hearing the said suit was dismissed by the Ld. Court of Munsiff on 18.9.1980 in respect of the C.S. Plot No. 4688/33518. 3. That Plaintiff Sri Gouranga Bhattacharjee preferred an appeal bearing No.4 of 1981 before the Ld. District Judge, Agartala, West Tripura. 4. That Sri Sukhdeb Roy, Ld. Addl. 2. That after contested hearing the said suit was dismissed by the Ld. Court of Munsiff on 18.9.1980 in respect of the C.S. Plot No. 4688/33518. 3. That Plaintiff Sri Gouranga Bhattacharjee preferred an appeal bearing No.4 of 1981 before the Ld. District Judge, Agartala, West Tripura. 4. That Sri Sukhdeb Roy, Ld. Addl. District Judge, Agartala, West Tripura on 22.8.1984 allowed the appeal with a remand order as follows “the suit is sent back on remand for fresh trial, after the report of the local investigation is received. The Learned Trial Court is hereby directed to issue a commission for local investigation for the purpose of ascertaining the location of jote No.78 of Mouja town Sheet No.2/10 and also for ascertaining whether the land described by boundaries in the 2nd schedule of the plaint is covered by the defendants kabala and also whether the land described by boundaries in the 1st schedule of the plaint constitute the land described in the Plaintiff’s Deed of gift”. 5. That in the said remand order the Plaintiff Appellant was asked to bear the costs of commission and the parties were directed to submit all documents in court, necessary for the purpose of local investigation. 6. That in view of the said remand order the parties are to follow the procedure of a long drawn commission. The Plaintiff has not yet deposited any commission before the Learned Court. 7. That the parties are neighbours and desire to follow peaceful life for the future and for that to submit a petition of compromise to the effect that the Title suit No.120 of 1984 of this Court i.e. previous title suit No. 58 of 1974 of the court of Learned Munsiff, Agartala, West Tripura and the Title Appeal No.4 of 1981 in the Court of Learned Addl. District Judge, Agartala, West Tripura shall stand dismissed with modification that the order dated 18.9.1980 passed by the Learned Sadar Munsiff, Sri B. B. Deb, Agartala, West Tripura in Title Suit No. 58 of 1974 shall stand good i.e. the suit stands decreed so far as the northern half of the suit land covered by C.S. plot No. 4688 is concerned, but in the land of C.S. plot No. 4688/33518 located in the southern half of the said c.s. Dag No. 4688 the plaintiff gets no relief. 8. 8. That the C.S. plot No. with finally published khatian and Map shall prevail, no party will be able to encroach upon the land so fallen in the share of the other party. If there be any encroachment by any party, the other party will get proper relief from court and costs and compensation for such encroachment. 9. That this compromise petition will be treated as part of the order for disposal of the suit. 10. That the parties will abide by their respective costs. No party will get any costs or compensation from the other party for anything done so far. The Plaintiff and Defendants, therefore, pray that your honour would be pleased to pass a disposal order in terms of the solenama.” 23. The trial court made an observation that the compromise petition itself is confusing and on the basis of the same no decision can be taken as to whether the B schedule land was a pathway or the land purchased by the defendant Arun Bala. I find justification in the finding of the trial court. The appellate court mechanically drawn inference from the compromise decree and in my considered opinion, arrived at a wrong finding. 24. The exhibited gift deeds executed by Gobinda Bhattacharjee to Gouranga Bhattacharjee and Gouranga Bhattacharjee to Makhanlal show that the original jotedar and his sons were residing in the land of plot No. 4688. The trial court has observed that while the original jotedar and his son were residing in the land of plot No. 4688 it was quite unusual for them to sell the portion of that plot of land which is connected with the pathway recorded in plot No. 4689. If the suit land described in schedule B of the present suit is said to have been sold by Gobinda to Nani Bala and ultimately purchased by Arun Bala in that case Gobinda and his son Gouranga had no scope to enter into their remaining land of plot No. 4688. This observation made by the trial court seems to be quite reasonable and the appellate court has failed to construe the same. 25. The Survey Commissioner was appointed by the court to make local inspection on three points as indicated hereinbefore. The report of the Survey Commissioner along with the map has been accepted in due course by the trial court and it is marked as C & C1. 25. The Survey Commissioner was appointed by the court to make local inspection on three points as indicated hereinbefore. The report of the Survey Commissioner along with the map has been accepted in due course by the trial court and it is marked as C & C1. I have meticulously gone through the Survey Commissioners report and the connected map prepared by the Survey Commissioner. The report is most exhaustive report and it appears that Survey Commissioner examined all the relevant documents produced by the parties and verified the suit land along with the purchased land of the plaintiffs. The report further speaks that the defendants did not allow the Survey Commissioner to measure their land. The original plot No. 4688 was recorded subsequently during the last survey and settlement in plot No. 427 and the land of plot No. 4688/33518 was recorded in plot No. 391. The pathway connected the office lane recorded in plot No. 384. The suit land described in Schedule B of the plaint has been clearly marked by the Survey Commissioner in red colour and it shows that it was outside the purchased land of the defendant Arun Bala. For fair appreciation and ready reference, we may quote here para 6 of the survey Commissioner’s report, which reads as follows: “6. POINT NO. (1): Who is in possession of the suit land? Suit land is vacant and both parties claim possession over the suit land. POINT NO. (II): Mode of possession. Suit land is vacant and the suit land is the only entrance of the purchased land of the plaintiffs and purchased land of the defendant No.1. POINT NO. (III): What are the documents on which the suit land is being possessed and whose documents attract the suit land. Original owner Gobinda Bhattacharjee sold land measuring 3 gandas to Smti. Nani Bala Banik by a registered sale deed No.17399 dated 1281964 with the following boundary: North by – Land of the Vendor (Gobinda Bhattacharjee) South by – House of Kalipada Bannerjee East by – Nani Chakraborty, West by – Land of the vendor (Gobinda Bhattacharjee) Smti. Original owner Gobinda Bhattacharjee sold land measuring 3 gandas to Smti. Nani Bala Banik by a registered sale deed No.17399 dated 1281964 with the following boundary: North by – Land of the Vendor (Gobinda Bhattacharjee) South by – House of Kalipada Bannerjee East by – Nani Chakraborty, West by – Land of the vendor (Gobinda Bhattacharjee) Smti. Nani Bala Banik sold the said land to Shri Parimal Talapatra by a registered sale deed No.16237 dated 651970 with the following boundary: North and West – Gobinda Bhattacharjee South by – Kalipada (Illigible) East by – Nani Chakraborty And the defendant No.1 purchased the said land from Shri Parimal Talapatra by a registered sale deed No.18401 dated 3061973 with the following boundary: North and West – Gobinda Bhattacharjee South by – Kalipada Bannerjee East by – Nani Gopal Chakraborty. And on perusal of the boundaries of the three sale deeds as aforesaid it appears that land of Gobinda Bhattacharjee was situated on the western side of the purchased land of the defendant No.1 which is the suit land of the present suit and as such suit land is outside the purchased land of the defendant No.1. After selling the land of 3 gandas to the defendant No.1 remaining land of Gobinda Bhattacharjee was gifted by him to his son Shri Gouranga Bhattacharjee by a registered deed of gift No.110490 dated 30111970 and Gouranga Bhattacharjee gifted the said land by a registered deed of gift No.7756 dated 18121985 to Shri Makhan Lal Bhattacharjee and Makhan Lal Bhattacharjee sold his entire land to the plaintiffs by three registered sale deeds dated 1212000. It appears from the boundary of the sale deed dated 1212000 executed by Shri Makhan Lal Bhattacharjee to the plaintiff No.1 that Shri Makhan Lal Bhattacharjee sold land measuring 0.054 acre to the plaintiff No.1 with the 6 ft. wide joint pathway on the south and thereafter Makhan Lal Bhattacharjee sold land measuring 0.054 acre to the plaintiffs Nos. 2 and 3 by a sale deed dated 1212000 with the 6ft. wide joint pathway on the south, then, Shri Makhan Lal Bhattacharjee sold land measuring 0.054 acre to the plaintiff Nos. 4 and 5 by a registered sale deed dated 1212000 with the 6 ft. wide joint pathway on the west. 2 and 3 by a sale deed dated 1212000 with the 6ft. wide joint pathway on the south, then, Shri Makhan Lal Bhattacharjee sold land measuring 0.054 acre to the plaintiff Nos. 4 and 5 by a registered sale deed dated 1212000 with the 6 ft. wide joint pathway on the west. As the suit land is outside the purchased land of the plaintiffs, Shri Makhan Lal Bhattqacharjee allowed the plaintiffs to use the suit land jointly as an entrance to their purchased land. On examination of the documents and on physical verification it appears that the shit land was kept reserved by original owner Gobinda Bhattacharjee for his entrance to his remaining land within the northern part of C.S. Plot No. 4688, on the north of the land purchased by the defendant No.1 and as such documents of the plaintiffs attract the suit land for using the same as an entrance pathway.” 26. After careful consideration of the Survey Commissioner’s report and the purchase deed of the defendant Arun Bala and her predecessors, I am of the considered opinion that the Khatian and Map prepared in the name of Arun Bala does not properly reflect her purchased land. However, since the entry was not challenged by the plaintiffs before the appropriate forum, the trial court rightly did not interfere and did not give any finding on that point. It is quite clear that the land described in schedule B of the plaint was used as a pathway by the plaintiffs, their predecessors as well as the defendants. The trial court, therefore, rightly decreed the suit and the appellate court committed mistake in interfering with the decree. 27. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The judgment and decree dated 31.05.2007 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Court No.4, Agartala, West Tripura in Title Appeal No.33 of 2005 is hereby set aside. 28. The judgment and decree dated 30.06.2005 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Court No.2, West Tripura, Agartala in Title Suit 14 of 2001 is restored and upheld. 29. Prepare decree accordingly. 30. Send back the LC records alongwith a copy of this judgment.