This appeal is by the defendants and is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the Assistant District Judge, Barpeta in Title Appeal No. 132 of 1970.

2. The material facts of the case may be briefly stated as follows:

Defendant No. 6, Satyanath Sarma, took settlement of 3 kathas 16 Lechas of land covered by dag No. 66 of K. P. Patta No. 276, more fully described in the schedule to the plaint, on payment of cash rent of Rupees 16/- per annum and was in possession of the land. During his illness during the last re-settlement operation the defendants dispossessed the plaintiff from the land. The plaintiff then served notice on the defendants demanding vacant possession of the land. Defendant No. 6 complied but defendants Nos. 1 to 5 did not. Hence he filed the present suit for recovery of possession.

3. Defendants Nos. 1 to 5 have filed a joint written statement while defendant No. 6 has filed a separate written statement, they have denied that defendant No. 6 was ever a tenant under the plaintiff and that he had vacated the land on demand by the plaintiff as alleged by him. They have also denied that defendants 1 to 5 trespassed on the suit land as alleged by the p