1. Heard Mr. P. K. Kalita, learned counsel assisted by Ms. T. Goswami, learned Advocate appearing for the appellants. None appears for the respondents despite the names of their counsels having been reflected in the cause list.

2. This Second Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree of reversal dated 08.07.2003 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Morigaon in Title Appeal No.9/2003 reversing the judgment and decree dated 04.02.2003 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) No.1, Morigaon in Title Suit No.59/1993.

3. The case of the plaintiff/respondent as set out in the plaint is that land measuring 3 kathas covered by Dag No.635 of Patta No.148 of 1971 Re-Settlement, situated at Morigaon Revenue Town in (erstwhile) Morigaon Sub Division is the subject matter of the suit which has been described in Schedule – ‘Ka’ to the plaint. Late Girish Barthakur was the owner of a plot of land measuring 7 kathas in the aforesaid dag and patta. Girish Barthakur died in the year 1977 leaving behind the defendant Nos.1 to 7 as his legal heirs. Defendant No.7 Ranubala Barthakur is the wife of Late Girish Barthakur whereas the other defendants are the sons and daughters of Late Girish Barthakur. It is the case of the plaintiff that after the death of her husband the name of Ranubala Barthakur being the wife was mutated in respect of the entire land. On 12.07.1979 Ranubala Barthakur sold the Schedule-‘Ka’ land measuring about 3 kathas, out of the total 7 kathas land, to the plaintiff for an amount of Rs.40000/- by executing registered deed of sale bearing No.1203 of 1979 pursuant whereto possession of the land was delivered to the plaintiff. Since then the plaintiff has been enjoying the land and his name has also been duly mutated in respect thereof by order passed by the SDC, Morigaon in Mutation Case No.68/84-85. The plaintiff further pleaded that when the Morigaon Sub-Division was declared as a district, the value of landed property had substantially enhanced. As such, in order to make wrongful gain at the cost of the plaintiff, the defendants had denied the title of the plaintiff and dispossessed him from the suit land on 09.10.1989 as a result of which the plaintiff Deben Nath (since deceased) was compelled to institute the Title Suit, inter alia, praying for a decree declaring his right, title and interest and for recovery of khas possession of the suit land. After the death of the plaintiff Deben Nath, his legal heirs were impleaded in the suit as plaintiff Nos.1 to 5.

4. The defendants contested the suit by filing their written statement wherein besides taking the formal pleas pertaining the maintainability of the suit on the ground of want of cause of action, non-joinder of necessary parties, limitation etc., the contesting defendants categorically denied having executed any registered deed of sale in favour of the original plaintiff (Deben Nath). It is the case of the defendants that their predecessor-in-interest, Girish Barthakur was the original owner of the land measuring 7 kathas. After his death the property left behind by Girish Barthakur devolved upon all the defendants who are his legal heirs and the property was held and enjoyed by the defendants as ejmali property. The defendants have further stated that nobody except the legal heirs of Girish Barthakur was ever in possession of the land and that the sale deed claimed by the plaintiff is a forged document. The defendants have also averred that the mutation, as claimed by the plaintiff, was done without giving notice to the defendants. It is the version of the defendants that the plaintiff (Deben Nath) before filing the suit had forcibly tried to possess the suit land. However, with the help of local people and the police, the defendants could resist such illegal attempt on the part of the plaintiff. The defendants have residential house over the suit land and are living therein since the time of the husband of