Brojendra Prasad Katakey, J.

1. These appeals, being Second Appeal No. 59 of 1992 and 68 of 1992, by the original plaintiff (Smt. Tandonbi Devi) and the defendant (Sri Kalamu Singh) in Title Suit No. 60 of 1986, respectively, are directed against the judgment dated 23.3.1992 and the decree drawn on 26.3.1992 by the learned Additional District Judge, Cachar in. T.A. No. 2 of 1989, partly decreeing the suit of the plaintiff by modifying the judgment passed on 19.12.1988 and decree drawn on 5.1.1989 by the learned Assistant District Judge, No. 1, Silchar (now Civil Judge) in the suit. Since both the appeals are arising out of the same judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge in T.A. No. 2 of 1989, they are taken up together for hearing and disposal, as agreed to by the learned Counsel for the parties.

2. Smt. Tandonbi Devi, the predecessor-in-interest of the present appellants in Second Appeal No. 59/1992, who are the respondents in Second Appeal No. 68/1992, instituted T.S. No. 60/1986 in the court of the learned Assistant District Judge, No. 1 at Silchar against Sri Kalamu Singh, the appellant in Second Appeal No. 68/1992 and respondent No. 1 in Second Appeal No. 59/1992, praying for a decree declaring the plaintiff as the occupancy tenant in respect of the land measuring 17 Bighas, 4 Kathas, 1 Chatak, described in Schedule 1 thereto; for declaration that the defendant No. 1 (Kalamu Singh) has no tenancy right over any portion of the suit land described in Schedule 1 and also for cancellation of the sale deed No. 53/1979 allegedly executed by Babahan Singh (son of Tandonbi Devi) on 08.1.1979 in favour of Kalamu Singh (defendant No. 1), contending inter-alia that Angahan Singh, the husband of Tandonbi Devi, took settlement of the suit land from the landlord (pro forma defendant No. 2) and was possessing the same by paying regular rent. After the death of his son, Dinomoni Singh possessed the suit land as tenant and the final khatian No. 27 was issued in his name. Dinomoni Sigh died leaving behind his mother Tandonbi Devi (plaintiff) and his minor son, namely Babahan Singh (alias Babahal Singh), as heirs and accordingly their names were mutated in the final khatian in place of Dinomoni Singh. Babahan Singh died on 8.1.1979 and, therefore, Tandonbi Devi (plaintiff) inherited his share over the property under the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act and as such became the occupancy tenant in support of the entire land, there being no other heir, which land she has been possessing as before. But the defendant No. 1 Kalamu Singh on 9.5.1984 collusively got his name mutated in respect of 14 Bighas, 8 Kathas, 9 Chatak of land in the revenue record (Khatian), which is part of the suit land allegedly by right of purchase. It has further been contended that on enquiry, she came to know that the defendant No. 1, Kalamu Singh, created a forged sale deed in the name of Babahan Singh on 8.1.1979 and got the deed registered on commission on 9.1.1979, though Babahan Singh died on 8.1.1979 after prolonged illness, for which an application was filed before the Deputy Commissioner for cancellation of the name of the defendant No. 1 from the Khatian but the Deputy Commissioner vide his order dated 2.7.1986 directed the plaintiff to file civil suit, for which the suit has been instituted.

3. The pro forma defendant No. 2, the landlord in respect of the suit land, namely M/s. Gupta and Mitra Estate, did not contest the suit by filing any written statement. The defendant No. 1, Kalamu Singh, however, contested the suit by filing written statement, contending inter-alia that there is no cause of action for the suit, that the suit is not maintainable and that it is barred by limitation. The defendant No. 1 in the written statement has further contended that as during the lifetime of Angahan Singh, the plaintiff Tandonbi Devi, deserted him after the birth of their son Dinomoni Singh and married one Nandakumar Singh, the