A person holding an Annual Patta is entitled to possess the land to the exclusion of others, and a suit for possession based on an Annual Patta falls under Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

I.A. Ansari, J.

1. This second appeal arises out of the judgment and decree, dated 2.3.01, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nagaon, in Title Appeal No. 9/2000, upholding, in part, the judgment and decree, dated 23.12.99, passed, in Title Suit No. 59/98, by the learned Munsiff No. 1, Nagaon, whereby the learned trial Court had decreed the suit of the plaintiff-respondents.

2. The plaintiff's case is, in brief, thus: The land, described in Schedule A to the plaint, has been in occupation of the plaintiff and proforma defendant No. 4 since the year 1935 and Annual Patta No. 263 was issued, in their favour, in respect of the suit land by the State government. Upon issuance of the Annual Patta, the plaintiff and the proforma defendant started paying revenue in respect of the land of Schedule 'A'. Following an amicable family settlement, the land described in Schedule 'A', along with some other properties fell into the share of the plaintiff and the plaintiff became the sole possessor thereof including the suit land. On a small portion of the said land, the plaintiff constructed a farm house and a cow-shed, but the remaining portion of the land was retained by the plaintiff as his agricultural land and the plaintiff has been raising crops thereon. Though the defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 3 have no right, title and interest over the suit land, they tried to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit land in the last part of the year 1997. Apprehending disturbance, the plaintiff initiated a proceeding under Section 145 Cr.PC. which gave rise to MR Case No. 376/1997. The defendants appeared in the proceeding and denied the plaintiffs right, title and interest over the land of Schedule 'A'. This apart, on 15.10.97, the defendants also entered into the land, where stood the farm house of the plaintiff and forcibly occupied the farm house constructed thereon. The portion of the land of Schedule 'A', wherefrom stands dispossessed the plaintiff, is described in Schedule 'C and Schedule 'B' is the land, which is a part of the land of Schedule 'A' and has remained in occupation of the plaintiff. In this factual scenario, the plaintiff sought for, inter alia, a decree declaring plaintiff's title to the land of Schedule 'A', confirmation of plaintiff's possession over the land of Schedule 'B' and recovery of khas possession of the land of Schedule 'C' by evicting the defendants therefrom. The plaintiff also sought for a decree of permanent in-' junction restraining the defendants from disturbing the plaintiffs possession over the land of Schedule 'A'.

3. The defendants contested the suit by filing their written statement, their case being, in brief, that the land, which is described in Schedule 'C and covered by Dag No. 652 of Annual Patta No. 263, has been in their possession for the last 40 years without any disturbance, claim or protest from any corner, their land being situated on the western comer of the plaintiffs land and, on their land, the defendants have their cow-shed and a residential house, where the defendant No. 1 has been residing since long. The defendants have also been cultivating the land in their possession and growing paddy thereon. The rights, title and interest, if any, of the plaintiff to the suit land stood extinguished by adverse possession of the defendants.

4. The learned trial Court framed the following issues for determination in the suit:

1) In there any cause of action for the suit?

2) Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form?

3) Whether the suit is barred by adverse possession?

4) Whether the suit is bad for want of necessary parties?

5) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief as prayed for in the suit?

6) To what relief/reliefs the parties are entitled to?

5. Having found that the plaintiff had succeeded in proving that he held the land, in question, on the strength of Annual Patta issued to him and that the defendants had not been able to prove their adverse possession, the learned