Amitava Roy, J.

1. Both these appeals carry a challenge against the determinations separately made by the learned lower Appellate Court negating the denunciation of the judgment and decree-dated 11.02.2009 passed in Title Suit No. 8/2008 instituted by the respondent herein.

2. I have heard Mr. M.H. Choudhury, learned counsel for the appellants in RS A 74/2011 and Mr. R. Goswami, learned counsel for the appellants in RSA 99/2011 Mr. A.C. Sarma, learned counsel for the respondent is also heard.

3. For the order proposed to be passed it is considered inessential to issue formal notice in the appeals.

4. The respondent herein instituted the aforementioned suit against the appellants in RSA 99/2011 (defendant Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4) in RSA 74/2011 (defendant Nos. 5,6 and 7) along with other proforma defendants in the Court of Munsiff No. 1, Morigaon praying for a decree inter alia for declaration of her right, title and interest in the suit land described in Schedule-A to the plaint and also for recovery of khas possession by removing the structures of the defendant Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 thereon. The suit land measured 1B-4K-6Ls covered by Dag No. 53 in Periodic Patta No. 281 located at Village Morigaon (Assam). The pleaded case of the respondent was that the same was her paternal property and that during his life time her father, Kan Kalita, the owner in possession thereof granted it to her. He in the process conveyed his other lands to his three other daughters (proforma defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 3). The respondent averred that though she as such was the rightful owner of the suit land, the same having transited to her from her father Late Kan Kalita, the defendant Nos. 5, 6 and 7 clandestinely in order to grab the same filed Mutation Case No. 201/2006 before the Circle Officer, Morigaon Revenue Circle and obtained an order dated 13.06.2006 recording their names in respect thereof. The respondent/plaintiff having come to learn of this misdeed on 08.08.2007 from the defendant Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 when they attempted to erect bamboo fencing on the boundaries of the land, she made necessary enquiries and could confirm the veracity of the information. It transpired that the defendant Nos. 5, 6 and 7 after obtaining mutation in the aforesaid manner executed four sale deeds in favour of the defendant Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 in respect of the suit land transferring the same in their favour. Situated thus, the respondent on 20.08.2007 filed a petition before the Deputy Commissioner, Morigaon for cancellation of the mutation of defendant Nos. 5, 6 and 7. This petition was forwarded to the Officer-in-Charge, Morigaon Police Station for enquiry and report. Further enquiries revealed that the defendant Nos. 5, 6 and 7 had filed mutation case only against Kan Kalita who was men dead, however, without impleading the respondent and her sisters who were his existing legal heirs. As the defendant Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 on the I strength of the aforementioned sale deeds dispossessed the respondent/plaintiff of the suit land, the suit was filed for the aforementioned reliefs.

5. The defendant Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 contested the suit by filing joint written statement wherein they denied the title of the respondent/plaintiff. According to them, at the time of the settlement operation in the year 1930-31 the suit patta was numbered 96 with the suit Dag as No. 402 containing 1B-4K-6Ls. They averred that Periodic Patta No. 96 as it stood then was comprised of seven dags enfolding 11B-3K-19Ls of land in all. They stated that one Bholou Kalita was the original pattadar and after him Tatak Kalita, Fosou Kalita, Gerai Kalita and Kala Kalita @ Kan Kalita were the recorded pattadars. They claimed that the Patta No. was altered to 281 and Dag No. 402 similarly got changed to 53, however, containing 1B-4K-6Ls of land. The defendants denied the respondent/plaintiff's right, title and interest in the land and claimed the same in them. The defendant Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4, in pa