Manojit Bhuyan, J.

1. The plaintiff Madhab Ch. Das, the respondent herein, instituted Title Suit No. 170/2006 praying for declaration of right, title and interest, khas possession, eviction and permanent injunction in respect of the Schedule 'A' land of the plaint. The respondent/plaintiff had contended that the suit land was purchased by him in the year 1987 by a registered sale deed and thereafter got his name mutated in the revenue records and also had been paying land revenue to the Government from time to time. In the year 1993, the respondent/plaintiff offered to sell the said land to the appellants/defendants and had also received token money, whereafter the appellants/defendants were allowed to reside on the land. This position continued until the year 2006 with intermittent visits by the respondent/plaintiff - initially asking for the balance amount and thereafter asking the defendants to vacate the house and move away from the land. The defendants having threatened the plaintiff with dire consequences, the suit came to be instituted. The original defendant Upananda Gogoi and on his death the defendant Nos. 1 to 4, who are the various sons and daughters of Upananda Gogoi, contested the suit by filing written statement. They contended that their father had purchased the land from the plaintiff by executing an unregistered Sale Deed on 21.11.1993 and had also paid Rs. 50,000/- by way of advance consideration. The defendants also pleaded that the plaintiff tried to back out from his promise time and again and taking advantage of the sudden demise of Upananda Gogoi filed the suit for wrongful gain. The defendants stated that they have been in actual physical possession over the suit land since the year 1993 and the plaintiff has no right, title and interest over the land in question.

2. Upon the pleadings of the parties, the Trial Court framed as many as six Issues and judgment and decree in the said suit in favour of the respondent/plaintiff was delivered on 31.8.2010.

3. The learned Trial Court held that the unregistered sale deed which had been produced and exhibited as Ext-'ka' could not confer title over the land, inasmuch as, no sale had been effected in terms of Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act. The learned Trial Court held that the occupation over the suit land by the defendants is illegal and therefore, are liable to be evicted therefrom. On this premise, the Trial Court decreed the suit by declaring the right, title and interest of the plaintiff over the suit land with further direction that the defendants are liable to be evicted and the plaintiff is entitled to recover vacant possession of the suit property.

4. In Title Appeal No. 22/2010, filed by Sanjoy Gogoi and others, discussion was confined to the grounds urged in the memo of the title appeal-the moot question being as to whether the appellant, i.e. Sanjoy Gogoi and others can be presumed to be the owners on the strength of their possession in view of the provision of Section 110 of the Evidence Act and whether the learned lower court had over-looked the said provision while passing the impugned judgment. The First Appellate Court held that the presumption of ownership under Section 110 of the Evidence Act is rebuttable and it is attracted when possession is prima facie lawful and when the contesting party has no title. The First Appellate Court held that admittedly the title of the plaintiff was not in dispute, therefore, the claim put up by Sanjoy Gogoi and others under Section 110 of the Evidence Act was not acceptable. As regards the document at Ext-'ka', the First Appellate Court agreed with the findings and decisions of the trial Court. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 25.8.2011.

5. Being aggrieved, the defendants Sanjoy Gogoi and others have filed the instant second appeal.

6. On 12.12.2012, this Court while admitting the appeal for hearing, had formulated the following substantial question of law;

"W