This second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 30.11.1998 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Darrang, Mangaldoi, in T.A. No. 23/97 modifying the judgment dated 26.09.1997 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Darrang, Mangaldoi in T.S. No. 4/94. The respondent/Defendant No. 1 has filed a cross objection. The case set up in the plaint is that in Periodic Patta No. 42/42 of village- Narikali under Lokrai Mouza, there were two dags: Dag No. 90, which is now numbered as Dag No. 114 and Dag No. 62, which is now numbered as 107. In Dag No. 62 (107), there were 3K 3L of land and in Dag No. 90 (114), there was 7B 4K 6L of land. Land in both these dags were owned by one Tanu. His mother, Puni, survived him and on the death of Tanu, name of Puni was mutated in the patta. Puni sold IB of land to Hari Prasad and 2B to Kerkon Nath. The said land formed part of Dag No. 90 (114). Puni also gifted 4B 4K 6L of land to one Rupnath Saharia. The land belonging to Kerkon Nath was purchased by Diparu Nath and accordingly, his name was also mutated in respect of 2B of land. Father of the plaintiff, Kalaram Koch, purchased 3K 3L of land of Dag No. 62 (107) from Puni by oral agreement and 4B 4K 6L from Rupnath Saharia in Dag No. 90 (114) and accordingly, his name was mutated in the patta in the year 1950. On 02.07.1991, the Defendant No. 1 forcibly occupied 2K 17L of land covered by Dag No. 62 (107) (Schedule-A of the plaint), which prompted him to file a proceeding under section 145 Cr.P.C. and in such proceeding, the learned Magistrate illegally declared possession in favour of the Defendant No. 1. The Defendant No. 1 also, in collusion with Revenue Authorities obtained mutation in respect of 1B 2K 5L only of Schedule-B land measuring 2B 2K 17L in Dag No. 90 (114). In the plaint originally filed, the schedule of the land was shown as 1B out of 2B 2K 17L and mutation was stated to be granted in respect of IB land. The plaint was amended and Schedule-B was changed to 2B 2K 17L. Plaint was also amended stating that mutation was granted in respect of 1B 2K 5L of land.

2. In the suit, the following prayers were made:

(a) That the suit of the plaintiff be decreed with cost.

(b) That a declaratory decree be passed that the plaintiff has got right, title and interest of the schedule 'A' and 'B' land.

(c) That the main defendant be ejected from the suit land (Schedule 'A' + 'B') land be demolishing his houses, structures, fences whatsoever existing and the vacant possession thereof be delivered to the plaintiff.

(d) That a permanent injunction be issued restraining the defendant, his agents, relatives, servants and workmen from entering and or dispossessing the plaintiff from the schedule land.

(e) That a declaratory decree be passed that the mutation in the name of the defendant No. 1 in schedule 'B' land is illegal, void, inoperative in law and thus liable to be set aside.

(f) That no relief is sought against the pro-forma defendant but if they file written statement against the plaintiff they may be treated as main defendant.

(g) To what relief, if any, the plaintiff is entitled to?

SCHEDULE-A

Land measuring 2K-17Ls covered by Dag No. 107 of periodic patta No. 155 of village-Narikalt, Mouza-Lokrai, bounded by:--

East:- (Nonoi) Mathauri,

West:- Nonoi river,

North:- Tapeswar Barua,

South:- Ambika Nath.

SCHEDULE-B

Land measuring 2B-2K-17Ls covered by Dag No. 114 of periodic patta No. 155 of village-Narikali, Mouza-Lokrai, bounded by

North:-Tapeswar Barua,

South:-Tapeswar, Haricharan Nath

East:-Tapeswar,

West:-Mathauri.

Thus, the plaintiff prayed for right, title and interest in land measuring 2K 17L covered by Dag No. 62 (107) and 2B 2K 17L in Dag No. 90 (114).

3. In the written statement, defendant No. 1 stated that Schedule-A is not a periodic patta land but is Government land, which is in occupation of the defendant for last 15 years or so. The boundary of Schedule-A land is not correct and the said b