The right of an annual patta holder continues until the patta is cancelled or a notice of non-renewal is given. The heirs and successors-in-interest of the original patta holder inherit the right to the suit land.

The appellants are the defendants in Title Suit No. 362 of 1975 which was dismissed by the Court of the Munsiff No. 2, Karimganj, the trial Court, by judgment and decree dated 29.3.86. They are aggrieved by the judgment and decree of reversal dated 2.2.96 passed in Title Appeal No. 22/86 by the learned Assistant District Judge, Karimganj, decreeing the suit.

2. I have heard Mr S.A. Laskar, learned counsel for the appellants as well as Mr. C.R. De, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr D. Saikia, counsel for the respondents.

3. A short narration of relevant facts would be necessary for disposing of the appeal. The respondents as plaintiffs filed the above suit against the appellant No. 1 and Sajid Ali (since deceased) predecessor-in-interest of the present appellant 2(Ka), 2(Kha) and 2(Ga) praying for decree inter-alia for declaration of their right title and interest in the suit land measuring 1 Bigha 7 Katha as described in the schedule therein and also for a declaration that the defendants had no right or title therein as well as for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in any manner with the plaintiff's possession of the suit land. The case of the respondents plaintiffs as set out in the plaint in short is that their predecessor-in-interest Sanat Kumar Das had taken settlement of the land in the year 1942 and got annual patta No. 24/2 in respect thereof. He enjoyed the suit land for more than 30 years and after his death, the suit land devolved on the respondents plaintiffs by succession who thereafter developed and invested the same by making substantial investments and applied to the appropriate authorities for conversion of the annual patta into a periodic patta in respect of the suit land. While the respondents plaintiffs were thus possessing the suit land by cultivating paddy thereon, the defendant No. 2 (Sajid Ali) got his name recorded in a Chatian published in respect of the suit land, showing his possession thereof. Thereafter the said defendant sold the suit land to the appellant defendant No. 1 by executing a sale-deed on 3.4.75. The appellant defendant No. 1 after the execution of the said sale-deed openly declared to dispossess the plaintiffs from the suit land. The respondents plaintiffs thereafter initiated a proceeding under Section 145 CrPC but the same was dismissed. They therefore filed the suit praying for the above reliefs.

4. The appellant defendant No. 1 and the original defendant No. 2 Sajid Ali contested the suit by filing a joint written statement wherein they inter-alia contended that the defendant No. 2 (Sajid Ali) had been possessing the suit land under Sanat Kumar Das as bhagidar. It was further contended that on 3.4.75 the defendant No. 2 (Sajid Ali) sold the suit land to the appellant defendant No. 1 and handed over possession thereof to him and since then the suit land was in possession of the appellant defendant No. 1. It was asserted that the suit land had never been possessed by the respondents plaintiffs or their predecessor-in-interest, Sanat Kumar Das. It was also averred that Sanat Kumar Das got annual patta in respect of the suit land and therefore on his death the respondents plaintiffs as his heirs could not succeed to the suit land on the right of inheritance.

5. The original defendant No. 2, Sajid Ali expired during the pendency of the suit and was substituted by his heirs, the present appellant 2(Ka), 2(Kha) and 2(Ga) respectively.

6. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed the following issues:-

1. Have the plaintiffs any cause of action for the suit?

2. Is the suit barred by limitation?

3. Is the suit bad for defect of parties?

4.

5. 4. Is the suit maintainable in its present form?

6.

5. Has the suit been properly valued and stamped?

6. Have the plaintiffs any right, title and interest over the suit land?

7. To what reliefs, if any are the plaintiffs entitled?

The parties thereafter examined witnesses in sup