The main legal point established is that delivery of possession is not a condition precedent for a valid sale under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, and mutation does not confer title as per Section 50 of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation.

H.N. Sarma, J.

1. This Second Appeal is filed by the plaintiff/appellant challenging the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior) Division, Morigaon in Title Appeal No. 3/2001, dated 5.9.2001 reversing the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior) Division No. 1, Morigaon in Title Suit No. 27/93 on 31.3.2001 by which the learned trial court decree the suit against the defendant/ respondents.

2. The pleaded case of the plaintiff/appellant, inter alia, is that 4(four) plots of land measuring 3 Bighas covered by Dag No. 219, P.O. No. 6, 4B-1K covered by Dag No. 198 of P.P. No. 8, 4K-4L, covered by Dag No. 229 of P.P. No. 7 and 2B-0K covered by Dag No. 217 of P.P. No. 5 in total 10 bighas, 15 lechas of land situated at No. 2, Neili Bagisha under Uttar Khola Mouza, in the district of Morigaon is owned and possessed by the plaintiff, which is fully described in the schedule of the plaint. The plaintiff, purchased an area of land measuring 3 Bighas (in Dag No. 219) from one Dwarcharan Namsudra, and an area of land measuring 4B-1K (Dag No. 198) from one Biseswar Biswas by executing two registered sale deeds, being sale deed 715/88-89 and 1099/91 which was duly registered before the Sub Registry, Morigaon. The rest of the suit land measuring 4K-4L (Dag No. 229) were purchased from Nripendra Dey and 2B-OK-10L (Dag No. 217) from Rajbehari Barman by the consent of the parties signified in the revenue, record without executing any sale deed. The appellant/plaintiff is possessing the suit land by paying land revenue and during the peaceful possessing the suit land by paying land revenue defendant No. 1, having started to put a fencing of barbed wire covering more than hundred Bighas of land including the land of the appellant/plaintiff, the appellant/plaintiff filed T.S. No. 27/93 in the Court of the learned District Judge, Morigaon. In the said suit the appellant/plaintiff prayed for the following reliefs:

(a) A decree be passed declaring rights, title, interest of the plaintiff over the suit land declaring the defendants are more trespassers over the suit land and the defendants have no right to occupy the suit.

(b) A decree for recovery of possession in respect of the suit land be passed and the plaintiff be put in to the possession of the suit land, described in the schedule below by evicting the defendants from this said land.

(c) A decree for permanent injunction be issued restraining the defendants their agents, employees from enjoying the suit land by plaintiff after delivery of possession to him.

(d) Cost of the suit be decreed against the defendants and in favour of the plaintiff.

(e) Any other relief or relief which the plaintiff is entitled to in law, equity any good conscience such relief or reliefs may kindly be granted to the plaintiff.

3. Summons of the suit land having been served, the defendants/respondents contested the suit by filing their written statement denying the claim of the plaintiff.

4. The case of the defendants/respondents is of total denial. The sale deeds by which the plaintiff stated to have purchased, the said land were also not admitted and stated to be not believable. The defendants at para 16 of the written statement pleaded, inter alia, they are the absolute owner of the Tea Estate, now known as M/s. Gopal Krishna Tea Co. (P.) Ltd. and from the date of their purchase, they are in possession of the same area. The allegations made by the appellant/plaintiff regarding the creation of fencing covering the area of the appellant/plaintiff has been denied in toto.

5. The learned trial court upon consideration of the pleadings framed the following issues:

(i) Whether there is any cause of action of the suit?

(ii) Whether the suit is maintainable in the present form?

(iii) Whether the suit is barred by law of limitation?

(iv) Whether suit is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties?

(v) Whether the court fee paid by the plaintiff is inadequate?

(vi) Whether the