Anima Hazarika, J.

1. This Second Appeal arises out of the judgment and decree dated 24.08.2009, passed by the learned District Judge, Shillong in RFA No. 2(H)/2004, reversing the judgment and decree passed by the learned Assistant District Judge, Shillong in Title Suit No. 3(H)/1991.

2. The brief facts leading to this Second Appeal may be enumerated as follows :

Plaintiff who is the Appellant in this Second Appeal filed Title Suit No. 3(H)/1991 before the Court of learned Assistant District Judge, Shillong inter alia pleading that his father Late M.A. Ghafoor was the absolute owner in possession and occupation of the suit premises known as "Lawn House" (formerly known as "Belle Vue") located at site No. 14 within the Cantonment area of Shillong together with all the buildings/structures standing thereon. The suit property as described in the schedule is quoted below:

SCHEDULE

All that part and parcel of the landed household property known as "Lawn House" (formerly known as Bellevue), Bungalow No. 14 in the Shillong Cantonment, with all buildings, dwelling houses, out houses, cooksheds, furnitures, furnishing fittings, gardens, garages, lands, trees, fences, etc more or less three acres and bounded as follows:

North: The compound of the house known as 'Dekkachang';

South: Northbrook Road;

East: Ridgeway Road;

West: Compound of the house known as the Retreat.

It is the case of the Plaintiff that the suit property formerly belong to one Mrs. F.M. Meiklejohn who by a Deed of Conveyance dated 21.01.1948 transferred and conveyed the same to the Plaintiff's father for a consideration of Rs.70,000/-. After the demise of his father the Plaintiff had been peacefully possessing the property and had also invested further sum towards renovation and repair of the property and had also planted trees on the compound. The Plaintiff received Memo No. 540/31/A/14 dated 12.01.1991 issued by the Administrative Commandant, for and on behalf of the Defendant No. 3 (Respondent No. 3 herein) intimating the Plaintiff that due to unavoidable reasons the Defendants were compelled to resume "...Cantt-14,SVY No. 61 which was leased to Mr. Mahammad Abdul Ghaffor on 'Old Grant Terms'...". Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order the Plaintiff filed the suit for Decree against the Defendants to the following effect:

(i) a declaration that the Plaintiff is the owner of Bungalow No. 14 within the Cantonment area of Shillong and described in the schedule below;

(ii) a further declaration that the Memo No. 540/31/Q/14 dated 12th January, 1991 intimating initiation of resumption proceedings issued in respect of the suit property described in the schedule by the Station Commander, Shillong on the Plaintiff is illegal, malafide, and violative of the Plaintiff's right to property guaranteed under the Constitution;

(iii) a perpetual injunction restraining the Defendants from proceeding with the resumption proceeding in respect of the said Bungalow No. 14 as indicated in the Memo dated 12.1.1991 or from taking possession of the said property on the strength of any such resumption proceedings;...

3. The Defendants filed a common written statement denying the averments made in the plaint. Else then taking the pleas that the suit was not maintainable, that there was no cause of action for the suit and that the same was barred by the laws of estoppel, waiver, acquiescence, limitations etc., the Defendants charted out a long history of the Shillong Cantonment as well as the suit land in Paragraph 8 of the written statement. In summary the case of the Defendants is that in terms of the Governor General's order No. 179 dated 12.09.1836 the grant of the land made to the individuals are termed as "Old Grant". Though no precise authority is available prescribing the use of the term "Old Grant" as such, it was stated that all Grants made under Governor General's order can be termed and distinguished as "Old Grant" from the lease granted under the Cantonment code and the Cantonment Land