C.R. Sarma, J.

1. This appeal, under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, C.P.C.) is directed against the judgment and decree, dated 08.06.1999 and 14.06.1999 respectively, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Dibrugarh, in Title Appeal No. 16 of 1997, whereby the first appellate Court, while dismissing the said appeal, upheld the judgment and decree, dated 04.09.1997 and 10.09.1997 respectively, passed by the learned Civil Judge No. 1 (Jr. Divn.), Dibrugarh, in Title Suit No. 38 of 1983. Hence, the challenge in this appeal is to the concurrent findings, rendered by both the Courts below. Relevant facts of the suit, may, in brief, be stated as follows:

The plaintiff/appellant instituted the said title suit, against the principal defendants (defendant Nos. 1 & 2)/respondents, seeking a decree for declaration of right, title, interest, confirmation of possession and permanent injunction in respect of the suit land.

According to the plaintiff, he became the absolute owner of the suit land by virtue of purchase from its owner i.e. proforma defendant Nos. 3 and 6 and got possession in respect of the same; but the defendant Nos. 1 & 2, without having any right, title and interest had, on 29.05.1979, encroached upon the suit land by breaking down plaintiffs bamboo fencing and collecting building materials on the encroached land, measuring about 15 ft. x 36 ft. (about 4 lechas). Hence, the plaintiff brought the suit, seeking the said reliefs.

2. The principal defendants Nos. 1 and 2 contested the suit by filing written statement and alleging, therein, that the suit was hit by law of res judicata and misjoinder of parties. Disputing the plaintiffs claim regarding purchase, the contesting defendants averred that the defendant No. 1 purchased 1 katha of land, as shown in the schedule to the written statement, by registered Sale Deed No. 2292, dated 10.09.1962 from the defendant Nos. 3 and 4 i.e. the original owner and got possession of the same followed by mutation and that the suit land is part of the said 1 katha of land. It has also been contended that, at the time of purchase by the defendant, the suit land was occupied by Mr. Gokul Shah and Mr. Jaduram Shah, as tenants under the original landlords, and due to their refusal to vacate the land, the defendants had initiated Title Suit No. 60 of 1965 for their ejectment therefrom and that during the execution of the decree, obtained by the defendant, in respect of the suit land, the plaintiff had purchased the land with the structures standing thereon and put up the fencing.

It has also been pleaded, by the contesting defendants, that, in 1970, Smti Sanchari Devi and Smti Mawa Devi filed a suit challenging the said decree, obtained by the defendants, but their suit was dismissed. Therefore, it has been averred, by the contesting defendants, that the proforma defendants i.e. the vendors of the plaintiff, had no saleable right to transfer the suit in favour of the plaintiff and as such the plaintiff did not acquire any right, title and interest over the suit land.

3. Upon the pleadings of both the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues:

(i) Whether the suit is maintainable?

(ii) Whether plaintiff has right to sue?

(iii) Whether suit is barred by res judicata?

(iv) Whether suit is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties?

(v) Whether there is cause of action?

(vi) Whether plaintiff has right, title and possession over the suit land?

(vii) Whether defendant No. 1 has acquired any right and title over the suit land? Whether defendant No. 1 has possession over the suit land, as claimed?

(viii) Whether plaintiff is entitled to decree, as claimed?

(ix) To what relief, parties are entitled?

4. In support of his case, the plaintiff examined as many as six witnesses and exhibited some documents including the Sale Deed (Ext. No. 6). The contesting defendants also examined three witnesses and exhibited some documents, including a copy of the Ja