” This second appeal by plaintiff is directed against the concurrent findings of two courts below. Present appellant as plaintiff instituted Title Suit No. 99/2002 in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) No. 3, Kamrup at Guwahati praying for a decree declaring her right, title and interest over suit land measuring 15 lechas and also for permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their employees etc. from dispossessing her from suit land described in Schedule-B to the plaint.

2. The case of the plaintiff is that she being the second wife of Late Radhanath Borah started living in the suit premises along with her husband while defendant No. 1 the daughter of her husband from the First wife was reared up in the house of the brother of her husband and then given in marriage to one Krishna Das Ojha. She and her husband got possession of the suit premises from one Mallika who was the tenant under the original owners, Satyanath Borah and others. They subsequently started paying rent to the owner but Krishna Das Ojha obtained signature of Radhanath Borah on a piece of paper and converted the same into a Will to claim that Radhanath Borah had bequeathed the same to him. He also got the Will probated. Thereafter, Krishan Das Ojha sought to evict the plaintiff by force. However, the attempt was foiled by intervention of the neighbours. Under such circumstances plaintiff continued to pay rent to Rajib Borah, the Manager of Bipin Borah Estate and obtained receipt. The original owner and his wife wanted the plaintiff to purchase the suit land on payment of consideration but the plaintiff could not afford. Krishna Das Ojha took the opportunity and claimed to have purchased the title of the suit land at Rs. 4,000/- from the original owner. He, thereafter sought to evict the appellant-plaintiff. There was a proceeding before the Revenue Authority against mutation granted in favour of the plaintiff on the basis of possession with respect to 15 lechas of land described in the Schedule-B. Apprehending that the defendant may forcibly evict her from the land she instituted this suit for declaration of right, title and interest and injunction for restraining the defendants from evicting her from the suit land.

3. On being summoned, the defendants appeared and submitted their written statement denying the case of the plaintiff. The defendants pleaded that the suit land originally belonged to Satyanath Borah who gave 1 katha 10 lechas of land to one Satyanandra Chandra Dey by executing a lease deed for 10 years. Satyanandra Chandra Dey constructed six (6) thatched house over the suit land and thereafter sold the tenancy right of the land with 6 thatched houses to Radhanath Borah at a consideration of Rs. 350/- and a deed to that effect was executed in favour of Radhanath Bora on 19.04.1943. On 18-12-1966, Radhanath Bora executed a will in favour of Krishna Das Ojha which was probated in the Court of learned District Judge No. 2 at Guwahati vide order dated 16.09.1968 in Misc.(Probate) Case No. 92/1967. Thus having acquired the lease hold right of the suit land, Krishan Das Ojha also purchased the title of the land by registered sale deed dated 30.07.1975 and thereafter obtained mutation in his name vide mutation Case No. 189/77-78 vide order dated 27.01.1979. Defendants totally and specifically denied the claim of the plaintiff as to paying of rent to the original land owner. However, defendants claimed that there was no proposal to sell by Premalata to the plaintiff and rather Premalata proposed to sell the suit land to Krishna Das Ojha pursuant to which the sale did actually take place on receipt of valuable consideration. Application of force to oust the plaintiff from the suit land was denied by the defendants in the written statement. However the plea of the plaintiff that there is entry in the records of rights as to her right of occupation of the land has been challenged by the defendants saying that the same was