Anima Hazarika, J.

1. Heard Mr. G.P. Bhowmik, learned counsel appearing for the appellants. Also heard Mr. B. Banerjee, learned counsel for the respondents. The appellants in the instant Regular Second Appeal being defendants in Title Suit No. 158/2007 have challenged the legality and validity of the judgment dated 26.2.2010 and decree dated 09.3.2010 passed in Title Appeal No. 53 of 2008 by the learned Civil Judge, Dhubri whereby and whereunder the learned Appellate Court allowed the appeal thereby reversing the judgment and decree dated 29.8.2008 and 3.9.2008 respectively passed in Title Suit No. 158 of 2007 (original Title Suit No. 153 of 2003) by the learned Munsiff, Bilasipara, which came up for admission under Order XLI , Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short Code).

2. The substantial questions of law have thus been formulated as hereunder:--

(i) Whether the lower appellate Court is justified in passing the reversal judgment and decree when the suit is barred under Section 154(1) ALRR 1886 and under Section 66 of the Assam (Temporarily Settled Areas) Tenancy Act, 1971?

(ii) Whether the lower appellate Court is justified for not holding that, against the order of cancellation of tenancy khatian by the settlement officer appeal lies to the Assam Board of Revenue under Section 147, ALRR, 1996?

(iii) Whether the lower appellate Court is justified in holding that the statues of the appellant (present respondent Nos. 1 to 6) remain unaffected; when in Ext-3, the final Khatian; name of Salima Khatun (mother of the original plaintiff) was recorded as occupant and not as Raiyat and/or tenant when appellant is not a cultivator?

(iv) Whether there is perversity of finding of facts in holding that the plaintiffs/respondents are occupying tenants?

3. In order to answer the substantial questions of law as formulated, the Court has to go through the pleadings of the parties, the evidence on record and the relief sought for:

The respondents herein are the legal representatives of Abu Bakkar Siddique who had brought the suit seeking the following reliefs-

(a) A decree with declaration that the plaintiff has his right to get restored his tenancy right and tenancy Khatian over the suit land. Defendant No. 8's order dated 31.3.2003 passed in appeal No. 49/2001 having concelled such tenancy right and tenancy Khatian of the plaintiff was out and out illegal, arbitrary and inoperative in law.

(b) A declaration that the plaintiff has his right, title and interest over the suit land to possess, enjoy and occupy the same as before, as recorded tenants of defendant Nos. 1 to 6 and that neither defendants Nos. 1 to 6 nor their men, agents and servants have any right to dispossess him from the suit land.

(c) An order directing defendant Nos. 7 and 8 to make necessary-corrections in the land records of the suit land having recorded therein the name of the plaintiff as tenants of defendant Nos. 1 to 6 accompanied by an order of issuing Raiyati Patta (Raiyoti Khatian) to the plaintiff in respect to the suit land.

(d) A decree of a permanent injunction, restraining permanently defendant Nos. 1 to 6, their men, agents or servants from dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit land and also from disturbing in any way plaintiff from the suit land and also from disturbing in any way plaintiffs peaceful enjoyment and possession of same and also by restraining defendant No. 7 permanently from giving any effect to his orders dated 29.3.2001 in Misc. Case No. 1/2001-2002 and defendant No. 8 from giving effect to his order dated 31.3.2003 in Appeal No. 49/2001.

(e) Any other relief to which the plaintiff is entitled under law, equity and good conscience.

4. The reliefs as sought for was based on the pleaded facts that the mother of the plaintiff late Salema Nissa @ Saleman Nessa Bibi was a tenant upon the Schedule land mentioned in the plaint measuring 4B IK 9L under late Alpu Sarkar, uncle of the defendant Nos. 1 to 6 and accordingly recorded as tenant und