The decision rendered in this second appeal shall also govern the disposal of other connected Second Appeal being SA No. 117 of 2006 because – firstly, both these appeals arise between the same parties, secondly: both relates to same suit property (land), thirdly: it is based on more or less same cause of action and lastly: this court has directed tagging of the aforementioned two appeals for their disposal analogously.

This is a second appeal filed by the defendant under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment dated 16.11.2002 and Decree dated 14.1.2003 passed by Ad-hoc Additional District Judge No.1, Tinsukia which in turn arise out of judgment/decree dated 6.9.2001 passed by Civil Judge (Sr. Division) No.1, Tinsukia in Title Suit No.29 of 1994.

By impugned judgment/decree, the first appellate court dismissed the defendant’s first appeal and in consequence confirmed the judgment/decree passed by the trial court which had decreed plaintiff’s suit for declaration of his ownership rights over the suit land, confirmation of his possession and for permanent injunction against the defendant restraining them from interfering in plaintiff’s possession over the suit land in any manner.

This appeal was admitted for final hearing on following substantial questions of law

“Whether the findings of the Court below on the point of delivery of possession of the suit land to the plaintiff respondent by his vendor were perverse?”

In order to appreciate the controversy involved in both the appeals, it is necessary to state the facts.

The appellant is the defendant whereas the respondent is the plaintiff in the suit out of which this second appeal arises.

The respondent to begin with filed a civil title suit being TS No. 29 of 1994 against the appellant in the Court of Munsif No. I, Tinsukia for a declaration and possession of the suit land measuring 4 B – I K – I L under Dag No 208 of PP No. 145 of Holotup Gaon, Hapjan Mauza, District Tinsukia on 8.8.1994. The respondent claimed a declaration and confirmation of his possession over the suit land on the basis of his title/ownership on the strength of the registered sale deed no 436 of 1994 dated 29.4.1994 executed by its owner for consideration in plaintiff’s favour. It was alleged that he purchased the suit land from proforma defendant no. 2 and 3 as its owners for consideration and accordingly placed him in possession of the suit land. It was alleged that when in May 1994 and July 94, the plaintiff (respondent) started some construction activity; the appellant (defendant) obstructed in his possession and claimed himself to be in its possession.

This led to initiation of proceedings under Section 145 of Cr.P.C between the parties by the district Magistrate .The parties carried the matter in criminal revision being 21(2)/94 before the District Judge Tinsukhia where the revisionary court stayed the order of the District Magistrate .The respondent therefore alleged that he being the owner of the suit land on the basis of registered sale deed dated 29.4.1994 and a cloud having been cast on his title over the suit land due to illegal interference of appellant over the suit land, he was entitled to seek a declaration of his title/ownership over the suit land and to seek a declaration of confirmation of his possession over the suit land and further permanent injunction against the defendant/appellant not to interfere in his possession over the suit land. On these averments, the respondent (plaintiff) filed a suit against the appellant (defendant).

The appellant (defendant) denied the averments made in the plaint and claimed that he had been in possession of the suit land through his predecessor in title since last five decades. He therefore denied plaintiff’s ownership contending that no title had been vested in the plaintiff by virtue of the sale deed dated 29.4.1994 and nor such sale deed could be made basis to claim better title over the suit land.

The tr