The only substantial question of law formulated in this appeal is as follows: " The appeal is admitted and shall be heard on the substantial question of law that whether the findings of the learned Court below in regard to the title of the respondents is not sustainable in evidence on record."

2. The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and recovery of possession. The defendant filed the written statement denying the title of the plaintiff as well as the plea of dispossession set up by the plaintiff. The learned Munsiff at Barpeta dismissed the suit ie TS 36 of 1985. There was an appeal ie TA1 of 1989 before the learned Assistant District Judge at Barpeta. The issue Nos 4 and 5 are as follows:

"4. Whether the plaintiff has right, title and interest over the suit land 5. Whether the defendants have purchased the suit land on 25.3.57 and since then they are in possession over it"

3. The learned lower appellate Court took up both the issues for discussion together and having considered both oral and documentary evidence, came to the finding as follows:

"When the patta stands in the joint names of the plaintiff and defendant, it can safely be held that the plaintiff acquired his right a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document