JUDGMENT & ORDER : Heard Mr. S. Lodh, learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as Mr. S. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel who has entered in appearance for the respondent. 2. This is an appeal under Section-100 of the CPC from the judgment dated 20.11.2017, delivered in Title Appeal No. 16 of 2017 by the District Judge, North Tripura, Dharmanagar reversing the judgment dated 12.05.2017 delivered inn Title Suit No. 11 of 2016 by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, North Tripura, Dharmanagar. The suit being T.S. 11 of 2016 was instituted by the respondent for declaration and recovery of possession of the Schedule-B land which according to the plaintiff-respondent is the part of the Schedule-A land. 3. For purpose of reference, booth Schedule-A and Schedule-B land as described in the plaint are reproduced hereunder: “SCHEDULE-A All part and parcel of the landed property measuring about 0.25 acre under Khatian No. 1241 appertaining to R.S. Plot No. 932 corresponding to C. S. Plot No. pb6, 73, 706p under Mouza Bishnupur, T. K. Ichailalcharra, Dharmanagar, North Tripura bounded by: North : P.. W. D. Road South : Saalam Choudhury and Dayamay Dey & Others. East : Mooheshpur Bazar and Tea Garden.. West : P.. W. D. Road. Wherein lies SCHEDULE-B (the constructed hut of the plaintiff-Suit land for recovery) All part and parcel of the landed property measuring about 31/2 satak under Khatian No. 1241 appertaining to R.S. Plot No. 932 corresponding to C. S. Plot No. pb6, 73, 706p under Mouza Bishnupur, T. K. Ichailalcharra, Dharmanagar, Norrth Tripura bounded by: North : P.W. D. Road South : Salam Choudhury and Dayamay Dey & Others. East : The plaintiff (Schedule-A land). West : P.. W. D. Road. Wherein lies a constructed hut of the plaintiff.” 4. The re is no dispute that after framing the issues on the basis of the rival pleadings and on recording the evidence, the trial court has dismissed the suit observing as follows: “26. Apart this, in the plaint, plaintiff described that in the south of B-schedule land there is Salem Choudhury and Dayamoy Dey and others. This description is also contradictory with the oral testimony of PW1, PW2, & PWW3 as the B-schedule land is located in the adjacent north of the gifted land of Shephali Nath. So, in the south the B-schedule land the gifted land of Shephali Nath ought to have been reflected. This description is also contradictory with the oral testimony of PW1, PW2, & PWW3 as the B-schedule land is located in the adjacent north of the gifted land of Shephali Nath. So, in the south the B-schedule land the gifted land of Shephali Nath ought to have been reflected. In the boundaries of Schedule or B-schedule land there is no reference of gifted land of Shephali Nath even though it is clearly established that the B-schedule land is situated in the adjacent northern boundary of the gifted land of Shephali Nath. Thus, I find that the boundaries of the B-schedule suit land of plaint are totally inconsistent with the oral testimony of PWs and due to such discrepancy I find no scope to hold that the B-schedule suit land is the part and parcel of A-schedule suit land.” 5. Being aggrieved by the said judgment dated 12.05.2017, the plaintiff-respondent preferred an appeal in the court of the District Judge, North Tripura, Dharmanagar being T.A. No. 16 of 2017. The said appeal was allowed by the impugned judgment dated 20.11.2017 by reversing that finding of the trial court observing that B-schedule land is situated within A-schedule land. 6. During cross-examination of Ananda Mohan Nath, the defendant-appellant (DW1), according to the first appellate court it has stated that he has no claim or interest in terms of the plaintiff as described in the Schedule-A land it has been admitted that this piece of land is duly recorded in the Khatian in the name of the plaintiff-appellant. 7. Based on the said finding as reproduced, the suit was decreed by declaring that the plaintiff-respondent has the right, title and interest over the A-schedule land as such, he is entitled to recovery of possession of the SCHEDULE-B land measuring .035 acres which is part and parcel of the schedule-A land measuring .25 acre recorded in the khatian No. 1241, R.S. Plot No. 932 corresponding to C. S. Plot No. pb6, 73, 706p under Mouza Bishnupur, T. K. Ichailalcharra, Dharmanagar, North Tripura and accordingly, it has been decreed that the plaintiff-respondents are entitled to recover the schedule-B land. 8. Mr. S. Lodh, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that in the cross objection DW1, the defendant-appellant has stated that the plaintiff is his full blood brother and he has no claim or interest over the land measuring .25 acre situated at Rakhalganj Bazar. 8. Mr. S. Lodh, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that in the cross objection DW1, the defendant-appellant has stated that the plaintiff is his full blood brother and he has no claim or interest over the land measuring .25 acre situated at Rakhalganj Bazar. He has admitted that, that piece of land has been recorded in the Khatian. His claim over the possession of the land measuring .035 acre is for his mother, as that piece of land she got form her father namely, Ramdhan Nath by means of a gift deed. According too him, he has been possessing the land measuring .05 acre inclusive of the said land measuring .035 acre. The defendant-appellant has clearly stated that he has no objection if the possession of the land as described in the schedules be taken over. In fact, he has acceded that his house is situated over the schedule-A land, belonging to the plaintiff and the house was constructed by the plaintiff about 5 ago back. He has good relation with the plaintiff. But he has denied that on 04.10.20122, the plaintiff allowed him to stay on the B-schedule land in a house constructed by the plaintiff. It is not a fact that he had ever requested the plaintiff to allow him occupy the said house for a short while. Even he has denied the statement that on 15.10.2014 he was asked to vacate the said land. Later on, thee defendant-appellant has voluntarily made the following statement inn the trial: “I am occupying the B-schedule suit land since 1989. Is it true that plaintiff lodged several suits in respect to his shop property at Rakhalganj market. I cannot say whether the plaintiff succeeded in those cases or not. It is not a fact that I did not possess or occupy any land of plaintiff. It is not a fact that the contents of affidavit are not true.” 9. It appears from the deposition of DW1 that his claim is based on thee gift deed No. 1-346 dated 18.09.1989 (Exbt.A). During admission off the said document, objection was raised by the plaintiff on its legality. The defendant-appellant has admitted that Khatian No. 919 (Exbt.-B) where the said land, as demised in Exbt-A is recorded. 10. It appears from the deposition of DW1 that his claim is based on thee gift deed No. 1-346 dated 18.09.1989 (Exbt.A). During admission off the said document, objection was raised by the plaintiff on its legality. The defendant-appellant has admitted that Khatian No. 919 (Exbt.-B) where the said land, as demised in Exbt-A is recorded. 10. It is apparent on comparison that the A-schedule land or the B-schedule land is not part and parcel of Khatian No. 919 (Exbt-B) but those are part and parcel of Khatian No. 932. As such, the defendant cannot have any legitimate claim either on the Schedule-A or the SCHEDULE-B land inasmuch as distinctly the said land, according to the record is distinct and different. 11. Mr. S. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing for the respondent has submitted that there is no substance in the appeal no infirmity in the judgment could be shown by the defendant-appellant. 12. Having due regard to the above conspectus of fact, this Court finds sufficient force in the submission of Mr. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant and hence, this appeal stands dismissed for simple reason that the claim of the defendant-appellant is based on the gift deed which attracts a completely different land, recorded in a different khatian. Draw the decree accordingly. Send down the records thereafter.