JUDGMENT & ORDER(ORAL) This second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 01.10.2008 & 15.10.2008 respectively passed by learned District Judge, South Tripura, Udaipur in Title Appeal No.2 of 2008 along with Title Appeal (cross) No.03 of 2008, whereunder the judgment and decree dated 18.02.2008 and 20.02.2008 respectively passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Sabroom, South Tripura in Title Suit No.6 of 2007 has been affirmed. 2. Heard learned counsel, Mr. D. Bhattacharji for the appellant and learned counsel, Mr. D.C. Roy for the respondents. 3. The second appeal has been admitted for hearing on the following substantial question of law:- “I. Whether the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below suffers from perversity?” 4. The appellant as plaintiff (hereinafter mentioned as 'plaintiff') instituted Title Suit No.6 of 2007 against the respondents as defendants (hereinafter mentioned as 'defendants') in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) Sabroom seeking a decree of perpetual injunction against the defendants restraining them from disturbing the possession of the plaintiff in the suit land described in the schedule of the plaint. 5. Bereft of unnecessary details, the pleaded case of the parties may be summarized thus:- The plaintiff inter-alia, contended that in the year 1969 Pyari Mohan Debnath got allotment of 4.90 acres of land and Raj Mohan Debnath got allotment of 3.00 acres of land and the allotted lands were recorded in their names in khatian No.1370 and 1380 respectively in different plot numbers. By a registered deed of purchase, vide deed No.1-821 dated 20.10.1982, the plaintiff purchased the entire land from Pyari Mohan Debnath and by a deed of purchase No.1-876 dated 03.12.1982 he also purchased the entire allotted land of Raj Mohan Debnath and thereby became owner of total 7.90 acres of land. After such purchase the plaintiff for extension of road relinquished 0.21 acres of land and, therefore, 7.69 acres of land remained in his possession and he developed it and planted rubber plants. Seeking mutation he approached the Revenue Authority and M.R. Case No.59 of 2006 was registered for the mutation of the land purchased from Raj Mohan Debnath and M.R. Case No.63 of 2006 was registered for mutation of land purchased from Pyari Mohan Debnath. Though the plaintiff purchased from Raj Mohan Debnath total 3.00 acres of land but the Revenue Authority allowed mutation of 2.55 acres of land recorded in Khatian No.1626 (Exbt-4). Though the plaintiff purchased from Raj Mohan Debnath total 3.00 acres of land but the Revenue Authority allowed mutation of 2.55 acres of land recorded in Khatian No.1626 (Exbt-4). Similarly, though he purchased 4.90 acres of land from Pyari Mohan Debnath the Revenue Authority allowed mutation of 2.24 acres of land and Khatain No.1627 (Exbt-8) was created in the name of the plaintiff. The plaintiff was thereby allowed mutation of total 4.79 acres of land and for the rest land mutation was not allowed and the plaintiff approached again for the mutation for the rest part of the land but that was pending. It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendants on 25.01.2007 tried to dispossess the plaintiff from suit land but the plaintiff resisted the defendants and so the defendants failed to dispossess the plaintiff. 6. The defendants by filing written statement contested the suit denying the averments made in the plaint and further contented that one Hiralal Das got allotment of 5.01 acres of land in the year 1973 and another Upendra Kumar Sukla Das got allotment of 3.00 acres of land in the same year and the predecessor of the defendants namely Barun Chandra Banik purchased the land from those Hiralal Das and Upendra Kumar Sukla Das vide registered sale deed and got possession of the purchased land. They have planted rubber plants on their purchased land and have been possessing the same. It was also stated by the defendants that the alleged purchase of the plaintiff was only a paper transaction and that the plaintiff did not get possession of the land purchased from his predecessors. The defendants, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the suit. 7. The Trial Court considering the pleadings of the parties formulated 3(three) issues, namely:- “(I) Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form? (ii) Whether the plaintiff has been possessing the suit land and if so, whether the defendants were threatening the plaintiff to dispossess him therefrom? (iii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get any other relief, if so up to that extent?” 8. In course of trail the plaintiff examined himself as PW-1 and also examined 4 more witness PW-2-Shri Chiranjib Chakraborty, PW-3-, Shri Dipak Baidya, P.W-4-Shri Raimohan Tripura, PW-5- Shri Anil Debnath. In support of his case the plaintiff also proved the following documents :- “Exbt. In course of trail the plaintiff examined himself as PW-1 and also examined 4 more witness PW-2-Shri Chiranjib Chakraborty, PW-3-, Shri Dipak Baidya, P.W-4-Shri Raimohan Tripura, PW-5- Shri Anil Debnath. In support of his case the plaintiff also proved the following documents :- “Exbt. 1, Certified copy of Khatian No.1120 in the name of Prayimohan. Exbt. 2, Certified copy of khatian No.1290 in the name of Rajmohan. Exbt. 3 series(total 3 sheets), original rent recipts in respect of the suit land. Exbt.4, Certified copy of Khatian No.1626, plttf. Exbt.5, Certified copy of RS map Sheet No. 3(P). Exbt. 6, permit of the Rubber Board in favour of the Plaintiff. Exbt.7. Signature of Raj Mohan Debnath in the original sale deed Bearing No.1-821. Exbt. 8, Certified copy of Khatian No.1627.” 9. The defendant No.3 examined himself as DW-1 and also examined 2 more witnesses namely DW-2, Shri Oli Ch.Tripura and DW-3, Shri Upendra Sukla Das. No documentary evidence was adduced by the defendants. 10. The Trial Court partly decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff. The operative part of the order passed by the Trial Court reads thus:- “ORDER Hence, from above discussion made this present suit is decided partly in favour of the plaintiff with the following reliefs:- (1) In Exbt.4 the plaintiff has proved his possession over the plots bearing Sebak Dag No.830/3509(P) and hal dag no. 2965/7662 over 2.11 acres of land and he has also proved his possession over the plot bearing Sebak Dag No. 830/3509(P) in hal dag No.2966 over the area of .44 acres of land and thereby the plaintiff has proved his possession over these two plots bearing total area 2.55 acres and as the plaintiff has proved his possession over these 2 above mentioned plots over the area of 2.55 acres, hence, the defendants are perpetually restrained from entering into the suit land and from disturbing with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over it. (2) In khatian No.1627 which was marked as Exbt.8 the plaintiff has proved his possession over the various plots which are described as below:- (a) The plaintiff has proved his possession over the plot bearing Sebak Dag nos. 830/3510(P) and 830/3511(P) corresponding to hal dag No.2964/7663 over 1.10 acres of land. (b) The plaintiff has also prove his possession over the plot bearing sabak dag No.830/3474(P) corresponding to hal dag no. 3522 over area of .47 acres. 830/3510(P) and 830/3511(P) corresponding to hal dag No.2964/7663 over 1.10 acres of land. (b) The plaintiff has also prove his possession over the plot bearing sabak dag No.830/3474(P) corresponding to hal dag no. 3522 over area of .47 acres. (c) The plaintiff has also proved his possession over the plot bearing sabek dag no. 830/3474(P) corresponding to hal dag no. 3526 over area of .28 acres of land. (d) The plaintiff has also proved his possession over the plot bearing sabek dag no.830/3474(P) corresponding to hal dag no.3527/7664 over the area of .39 acres. Hence, the plaintiff has proved his possession over the various plots mentioned above in khatain no.1627 over the area of total 2.24 acres and as the plaintiff has proved his possession over area of 2.24 acres. Hence, the defendants side are restrained from entering into the suit land and from disturbing with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff side over it.” 11. Aggrieved, the plaintiff preferred Title Appeal No.2 of 2008 in the Court of learned District Judge, South Tripura, Udaipur and the defendants also filed a cross objection which was registered as Title Appeal(cross) .03 of 2008 and by a common judgment dated 1.10.2008 both the title appeal and cross objection were dismissed. 12. The plaintiff therefore filed the present second appeal. 13. This is a suit for permanent injunction. The plaintiff did not pray for any declaration and simply prayed for injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in his possession in the suit land measuring 7.69 acres. 14. Substantially as I find the Trial Court partly decreed the suit only taking into consideration the khatian marked as Exbt-4 and Exbt-8. Since for the rest part of the purchased land of the plaintiff mutation was not allowed by the Revenue Authority, the Trial Court dismissed the claim of the plaintiff for the rest of the suit land. 15. The case of the defendants is altogether different. The predecessor of the defendants purchased land from different land holders and have been possessing the same. The plaintiff purchased the suit land from Pyari Mohan Debnath and Raj Mohan Debnath by registered deed. The purchase deed from Raj Mohan Debnath has been marked as Exbt-7, but the purchase deed from Pyari Mohan Debnath has not been exhibited but the original purchase deed is found in the lower Court record. The plaintiff purchased the suit land from Pyari Mohan Debnath and Raj Mohan Debnath by registered deed. The purchase deed from Raj Mohan Debnath has been marked as Exbt-7, but the purchase deed from Pyari Mohan Debnath has not been exhibited but the original purchase deed is found in the lower Court record. Though it has not been exhibited but to minimize the litigation I think the Court may look into it. 16. Khatian No.1120 (Exbt-1) was prepared in the name of Pyari Mohan Debnath and khatian No.1290 was prepared in the name of Raj Mohan Debnath for the allotted land and the entire land has been purchased by the plaintiff in the two deeds which the plaintiff has proved. 17. It appears that the 2(two) mutation cases were filed but the mutating authority did not allow mutation of the entire purchase land for any reason which has not been disclosed or brought on record. 18. Be that as it may, it is up to the Revenue Authority as to whether they will grant mutation or not but while it is brought on record that the plaintiff bonafide purchased the land and got the possession from his predecessor he cannot be deprived of the decree which is sought by the plaintiff. 19. The Trial Court was absolutely wrong in partly decreeing the suit and in refusing the part prayer of the plaintiff. The plaintiff is entitled to get a decree of permanent injunction of the entire suit land of 7.69 acres as prayed for. The judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court therefore are set aside. The suit filed by the plaintiff seeking permanent injunction of his purchased land measuring 7.69 acres is allowed and decreed. Defendants are restrained from disturbing and/or interfering with the possession of the plaintiff in the suit land described in the schedule of the plaint. Prepare appellate decree accordingly. 20. The second appeal accordingly stands disposed of. Parties to bear their own costs. 21. Send back the LC records along with the copy of the judgment.