Arup Kumar Goswami, J.

1. This second appeal is preferred by the plaintiffs against the judgment and decree dated 12.12.2003 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division No. 1, Silchar in Title Appeal No. 29 of 2002 reversing the judgment and decree dated 10.05.2002 in Title Suit No. 101 of 1993. This appeal was admitted to be heard on the following substantial questions of law:

1. Whether the learned Lower Appellate Court was justified in dismissing the suit on the ground of non-joinder of co-pattadars since it was not a suit for partition but a suit for declaration of right, title and interest on the basis of a deed of partition between the plaintiffs and the defendants?

2. Whether the learned Lower Appellate Court was justified in dismissing the suit on the ground that the plaintiffs have sought for only a declaration with no further relief in as much as the plaintiffs have sought declaration along with further relief of confirmation of joint possession with the defendants?

2. After hearing had progressed to a considerable extent, Mr. B.C. Das, learned senior counsel for the appellant submitted that for fair adjudication of this case, one more substantial question of law is required to be formulated in respect of the finding recorded by the learned appellate court that the plaintiff failed to prove their possession.

3. After hearing Mr. Das, learned senior counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. A.B. Siddique, learned counsel for the respondents, by an order dated 19.06.2012, one more substantial question of law was formulated to the following effect:

Whether the finding of the learned lower Appellate Court that the plaintiffs failed to prove their possession, is perverse to the evidence on record?

4. A suit was filed by one Jongi Singh (also known as Jongi Singh Chetri) against Ram Bilash Singh, Smti Janaki Devi and Pankaj Singh as defendants. During the pendency of the suit, Jongi Singh died and the decree of the learned trial court shows the names of the following legal representatives of the original plaintiff:

(1) Chandrabhan Singha (2) Satya Narayan Singha (3) (4) Gopal Singha (5) Smti Parbati Singha (6) Smti Geeta Singha and (7) Smti Kunti Singha.

5. The decree of the learned trial court shows the following defendants:

(1) Smti Janaki Devi (2) Shri Pankaj Singh Chetri (3) Smti Purnima Singh Chetri (4) Smti Pratima Singh Chetri (5) Smti Pritom Singh Chetri (6) Smti Bhageswari Devi (7) Shri Ranjit Singh (8) Shri Uday Singh (9) Shri Amar Singh (10) Shri Ajit Singh (11) Smti Madhumita Singh and (11) Smti Madhu-Chanda Singh.

6. The first appeal was preferred by Janaki Singh, Pankaj Singh, Ajit Singh and Ranjit Singh against Chandrabhan Singh.

7. The second appeal is filed by Chandrabhan Singh against Janaki Singh, Pankaj Singh, Ajit Singh and Ranjit Singh.

8. The following is the prayer made in the suit:

It is therefore prayed that the court will be pleased to pass a decree in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants declaring the title of the plaintiff to the extent of 14 K 3 Ch of land in the patta land mentioned in the Schedule below being in 14 K 3 Ch only and confirming in such possession along with the defendants who are co-sharers of the patta and/or pass such other order or orders as would be deemed fit and proper under the circumstances of the case.

9. Schedule to the plaint reads as under:

SCHEDULE

District Cachar, Ph. Barakpar, Mouza Tarapur Part-VIII (B. Town) 2nd R.S. Patta No. 27, Dag No. 106, 107, 118 and 119, total area being 16 K in which the plaintiffs share is 14 K 3 Ch with revenue of Rs.8.42 Paise. The land being in Urban areas of Silchar Town appertaining to holding No. 75, Ward No. 27, Tarapur-3.

10. The case set out in the plaint is that one Bishen Singh Chetri had purchased 1 B 7 K 3 Ch of land in the PP No. 78 of Tarapur-VIII Mouza along with some other land by a kabala dated 20.05.15. A portion of the said purchased land measuring 16 K was surveyed to be part of second RS Patta No. 27 in