The main legal point established is that in civil suits, parties are bound to prove the case as alleged by them and cannot adduce evidence for a case inconsistent with the one pleaded.

T. Nanda Kumar Singh, J.

1. This second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 11.8.1999 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nagaon in Title Appeal No. 8 of 1998 dismissing the appeal and affirming the judgment and decree dated 28.1.1998 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Nagaon in Title Suit No. 78 of 1989/231 of 1993. Both the 1st appellate Court and the trial Court made concurrent findings of fact that the appellant plaintiff has no right and title over the suit land described in Schedule A to the plaint and the suit houses described in Schedule B to the plaint.

2. The present second appeal is admitted on the substantial question of law formulated at the time of the admission, of the appeal which reads as follows :

1. Whether the Courts below erred in law in interpreting the decision in Title Suit No. 4/46 and decide the suit in question

3. Heard Mr. B. K. Goswami, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. T. Goswami, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant as well as Mr. K. Pathak, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents-defendants.

4. The appellant-plaintiff filed the Title Suit No. 78 of 89 & 231 of 1993 against the respondents-defendants for declaration that the plaintiff is the absolute and exclusive owner of the suit land described in Schedule A to the plaint and the suit houses described in Schedule-B to the plaint and also for khas possession of the suit land and suit houses by evicting the principal-defendant Nos. 1 and 2 and their men/agents. The pleaded case of the appellant-plaintiff in the plaint of the Title Suit No. 78/89 & 231/93 of the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) No. 1, Nagaon are that the suit land comprising of 41/4 Lecha covered by Dag No. 1562 (old 1185) of the periodic patta No. 676 (old 116) of the Town Nagar Kissan under the Town Mouza of Nagaon District and the suit houses mentioned in Schedule-'B' constructed on the suit land described in Schedule-A were originally belonged to the proforma-defendant No. 4, Md. Anowar Rahman and proforma defendant No. 5, Md. Hamidur Rahman and they had been in possession of the suit properties. The houses described in Schedule-B to the plaint were let out to the proforma defendant No. 6, 7 and 8 (Md. Abdul Rasid, Md. Abdul Harnid and Md. Samsuddin) and they were running the shoe shop in the name and style "O.K. Shoe Store". On 28.8.77, the proforma defendant Nos. 6, 7 and 8 closed the shop and left the houses and the proforma defendant Nos. 4 and 5 brought the houses under their occupation.

5. The appellant-plaintiff is also dealing with shoes at a shop known as "Janata Shoe House" adjacent to the said shop i.e. 0. K. Shoe Store. The proforma respondent Nos. 4 and 5 had agreed to sell the suit land and the suit houses to the appellant-plaintiff and accordingly a sale deed was drawn up on 1.9.1997 for a consideration amount of Rs. 9,700/-. However, the appellant-plaintiff was not ready to pay the said consideration amount on 1.9.1997. But on 22.12.1997, the appellant-plaintiff paid the said consideration amount to the proforma defendant No. 4 and 5 and the said sale deed was also registered on 22.11.1977 (exhibit-3). Accordingly, the appellant plaintiff became the owner of the suit properties i.e. Schedule-A and Schedule-B. Further, it is pleaded that the vendors put the appellant-plaintiff in possession of the suit land. Furnitures and the shop materials of "O.K. Store" of the proforma defendants Nos. 6, 7 and 8 which were under the custody of the proforma-defendant No. 4 and 5 were also purchased by the appellant-plaintiff for a consideration amount of Rs. 19,000/- on the same day i.e. on 22.12.1977 and the proforma defendant Nos. 6, 7 and 8 also issued a receipt and handed over those articles to the appellant-plaintiff on 22.12.1977. Thereafter, the appellant-plaintiff opened the shop on the suit land on 28.12.1977. hi the evening of that day at about 7.30 P.M. the principal defendant Nos. 1 and 2 wh