This appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 27.7.94 passed by the Assistant District Judge, Barpeta in Title Appeal No.26 of 1993. By the judgment he affirmed the earlier judgment and decree dated 16.10.93 passed by the Munsiff No.2, Barpeta in Title Suit No.25 of 1992. The learned Munsiff dismissed the suit. Hence this second appeal. 2. The following are the substantial question of law :

(1) The trial Court held that the sale of the land can not be termed as valid at the time of purchase as the suit land was Annual Patta land. The appellate Court on the other hand came to the finding that the transfer was valid only during the period of subsistence of the annual lease and it ceased to be valid as soon as the annual lease was converted to Periodic Patta and that the plaintiff can not acquire any right, title and interest over the suit land against the defendant. But both the Courts below failed to decide, whether the plaintiff could claim right, title and interest over the suit land under the provision of section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act ?

(ii) Whether on the face of the registered sale deed dated 6.3.68 duly executed by the predecessor-in-interest of the defendants in favour of the plaintiff, the doctrine of Estoppel operates as bar to the defendants from disputing the plaintiff's claim of right, title and interest over the suit land?

3. The brief facts are as follows: The suit land falls within the Tribal Belt and the plaintiff is a permanent resident of the locality, even before constitution of the Tribal Belt. He purchased the suit land from one Majhi Ram Boro, the predecessor-in-interest of the defendants by a registered sale deed dated 6.3.68 for a consideration of Rupees four thousand and obtained khas possession of the land. The plaintiff knew at the time of purchase that the suit land was Annual Patta. land. The plaintiff was in occupation of the land purchased by him. But the vendor Majhi Ram Boro got the patta converted into periodic sometime in 1984 in his own name. Thereafter, Majhi Ram Boro died and the defendants, the heirs of Majhi Ram Boro threatened the plaintiff to dispossess from the suit land. Hence the suit was filed for declaration of title, confirmation of possession.

4. The defendants by filing written statement denied the sale made by Majhi Ram Boro. Their further plea was that they have been all along possessing the suit land. The plaintiff also filed two cases for mutation of his name, but that were rejected. The suit land being Periodic Patta land in the name of Majhi Ram Boro, the plaintiff can not claim any title to the land. Issue Nos 6, 7, 8 and 9 are the relevant issues for the determination of the gist, which are quoted below:

“6. Whether the plaintiff has in possession of the suit land since 6.3.68 ?

7. Whether the plaintiff has acquired any right, title and interest over the suit land as against the defendant?

8. Whether the defendants are estopped to claim right, title and possession over the suit land?

9. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get decree as prayed for?”

5. The learned Munsiff took up Issue Nos 6, 7 and 8 for discussion together. The learned Munsiff found, inter alia, as follows:

(1) The revenue was paid by the plaintiff in the name of pattadar Majhi Ram Boro vide Exts 4 to 12.

(2) Exts 2 and 3 show that in the year 1984 the suit land was converted into Periodic Patta in the name of Majhi Ram Boro.

(3) Since at the time of purchase, the suit land was Annual Patta land, hence the said transaction of the land can not be termed as valid. The subsequent conversion of land into Periodic Patta cannot also make the earlier sale of the Annual Patta land valid.

(4) From the cross-examination of PW 1 we came to know that for the last one and half years the plaintiff is not in possession of the suit land.

6. Having arrived at this finding, the learned Munsiff decided Issue No. 9 in favour of the defendant and dismissed the suit. There was an appeal being Title Appeal

Click Here to Read the rest of this document