The main legal point established is that the evidence of ownership and possession of the land, as well as the determination of title by the Civil Courts, prevails over mutation granted by revenue authorities.

Amitava Roy, J.

1. The Appellants/Defendants have impugned the judgment dated 17.11.2004 and the decree dated 29.11.2004 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Barpeta, in Title Appeal No. 24/2003 affirming the judgment dated 22.8.2003 and decree dated 27.8.2003 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) No. I, Barpeta, in Title Suit No. 33/01, decreeing the suit of the Respondents/Plaintiffs.

2. I have heard Mr. MH Rajborbhuiya, learned Counsel for the Appellants. For the order, which I propose to pass, issuance of notice on the Respondents is not necessary.

3. The Respondents filed Title Suit No. 33/01 against the Appellants/Defendants and two proforma Defendants praying for a decree inter alia for declaration of their right, title and interest in the suit land and for confirmation of possession thereof. The land involved in the suit was described to be measuring 6 bighas 2 kathas 1 lechas covered by Dag No. 72 under KP Patta No. 119 situated at village Gadesali Pam, mauza Sarukhetri, District Barpeta, Assam. The Respondents/Plaintiffs' pleaded case in short is that their father late Neshu Seikh held annual patta of the land which was eventually converted into a periodic patta in his favour vide order dated 10.3.74 by the jurisdictional Circle Officer. The land was thus in the possession of their father and continued to be so till his death in the year 1981. On his death, the Respondents/Plaintiffs, their sisters the proforma Defendants and their mother inherited the property. Their mother expired soon thereafter and the proforma Defendants relinquished their share in the property. According to the Respondents/Plaintiffs, the Appellants/Defendants were their near relations being the sons of their uncle. The ancestral property was, however, partitioned amongst the heirs but the suit land remained in exclusive possession of the Respondent's/Plaintiffs' father. According to the Respondents/Plaintiffs, while they in their own right had been possessing the suit land, the Appellants/Defendants No. 1,2 and 3 secretly managed to get their names mutated in respect of the suit land. The Respondents/Plaintiffs having unsuccessfully challenged the mutation in the higher forum approached the Civil Court for the reliefs aforementioned.

4. In their written statement cum counter claim, the Appellants/Defendants denied that the suit land belonged exclusively to the father of the Respondents/Plaintiffs and contended that the same was the joint property of the family. They asserted that the Respondents/Plaintiffs' father being the eldest brother, the patta of the suit land was allowed to remain in his name. However, the suit land was partitioned into three shares and that the Appellants/Defendants were exclusively possessing two third share of the suit land. While admitting that the Respondents/Plaintiffs were in possession of the remaining one third share of the suit land, they averred that mutation in respect of two third shares of the suit land was granted in their favour. They, therefore, prayed for a declaration of their right, title and interest in and confirmation of possession in the two third share of the suit land measuring 4B 7K 1/3 Ls.

5. The learned Trial Court on the basis of the pleadings framed several issues, issue No. 3 and 5 being as under.

Issue No. 3. Whether the Plaintiffs have right, title, interest and possession over the suit land?

Issue No. 5. Whether the Defendants have right, title interest an possession over the suit land?

6. Both parties adduced evidence and the learned Trial Court on a consideration of the pleadings of the parties and the evidence on record, both oral and documentary, decreed the suit deciding the issue No. 3 in favour of the Respondents/Plaintiffs and issue No. 5 against the Appellants/Defendants. As aforesaid, the learned Lower Appellate Court in the appeal filed by the Appellants/Defendants affirmed the decree of the learned Trial Court.

7. Mr. Rajbarbhuiyan has argued that