C.R. Sarma, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree, dated 11.8.2008 and 18.8.2008 respectively passed by the learned Civil Judge, Tinsukia, in Title Suit No. 66/2006. The Plaintiff's suit being dismissed by the learned trial Judge, the Plaintiff, as Appellant, has come up with this appeal.

2. The Plaintiff's case, in brief, may be stated as below: -

The Plaintiff is the absolute owner of 1 katha, 11/2 lessas of land appertaining to a part of Dag No. 1337(New)/458(01d) of periodic patta No. 422(Old)/1160(New), situated at Tinsukia Town Ekma Khanda-3, Mouza-Tinsukia, and another plot of land measuring 4 kathas, 11 lessas, covered by Dag No. 1313, 1334, 1338 of periodic patta No. 250 situated at Tinsukia Town Ekma Khanda-1, Mouza-Tinsukia, along with the residential building and the shop houses standing thereon. The residential building and rented premises are covered by Holding No. 2343 and 2343(a) of Tinsukia Municipal Board. The suit property has been fully described in the schedule to the plaint.

In order to avoid quarrel, among his sons (Defendant Nos. 1 to 3), the Plaintiff permitted his sons, i.e., the Defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 3 to reside separately, since 2000, with the arrangement that the Defendant No. 1 was allowed to reside with his family in the first floor while the Defendant No. 2 was allowed to reside with his family in the second floor of the building, standing on the suit premises. The Defendant No. 3 was allowed to reside in the house situated at Delhi. The ground part of the said building at Tinsukia was divided into two parts and each of the Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 were allotted one part in the ground floor of the building as permissive occupier, to run their businesses, for maintaining their livelihood.

But, the Defendant No. 2, vide order passed in Mutation Case No. 180/A, got his name mutated in respect of land measuring 3 kathas, 9 lessas, covered by Dag No. 1337 (in part) of P.P. No. 1160 and Dag No. 1138 (in part) and 1334 of P.P. No. 250, which was a part of the suit land as described in Schedule-'A' to the plaint and obtained separate Dag Nos. 1660, 1661 and 1662 of P.P. No. 2142. Similarly, the Defendant No. 1 also, vide Mutation case No. 475/02, got his name mutated in respect of Schedule-'B' land measuring 2 kathas, 18 lessas covered by Dag Nos. 1334, 1338 of P.P. No. 250 and Dag No. 1337 of P.P. No. 1160. The Defendant No. 3 too, vide Mutation Case No. 188(A) of 2005-06, got his name mutated, in respect of land covered under Dag No. 1338 (in part) of P.P. No. 250 in respect of land measuring 1 katha, 18 lessas as described in Schedule-'C' to the plaint.

According to the Plaintiff, after receipt of the notice in the mutation case aforesaid, he raised objection and approached the Circle Officer, with a prayer for cancellation of the said mutation order, but the Defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 3 managed to get their names mutated and obtained separate pattas and holding numbers, as aforesaid. It is also averred that the Defendant No. 2, without having right, title and interest over the suit land and without any permission from the Tinsukia Development Authority, started construction of a shed measuring 15 ft. x 25 ft. with C.I. Sheet roof and wooden post and completed the same on 1.11.2006 thereby covering the water tank and the broken pillars of the tank, situated on the third floor of the building, which has been described in Schedule-'B' to the plaint.

According to the Plaintiff, the Defendants have no right, title and interest over the suit premises and they are just permissive occupiers. Hence, the Plaintiff instituted the suit for -

(i) declaration of right, title and interest over the suit properties;

(ii) declaration that the mutation in the name of the Defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 3 in respect of Schedule-'A', 'B' and 'C' land and the allotment of new holding number to the Defendant No. 2 were illegal and liable to be cancelled;

(iii) declaration that the construction of shed/structure