Suman Shyam, J.

1. This Second Appeal has been directed against the judgment and decree dated 20.12.2007 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Lakhimpur, North Lakhimpur, in Title Appeal No. 8/2007 reversing the judgment and decree dated 14.05.2007 passed in Title Suit No. 53/2006 whereby the learned Munsiff No. 1, Lakhimpur had dismissed the suit filed by the respondents/plaintiffs. The brief factual matrix of the case, as set out in the plaint, is that land covered by dag No. 1414 of P.P. No. 402 of Ward No. 10, Norm Lakhimpur Town measuring 1 bigha 1 katha 8 lechas originally belonged to Sashidhar Phukan and Dhananjoy Deori in equal shares. The aforementioned plot of land, besides other land covered by dags No. 1415 of the same patta, had been amicably partitioned between Sashidhar Phukan and Dhananjoy Deori pursuant whereto Sashidhar Phukan was enjoying actual physical possession of half the land covered by dag No. 1414 i.e. 3 kathas 4 lechas for more than 20 years till his death. The plot of land measuring 3 katha 4 lechas covered by dag No. 1414 of P.P. No. 402 which is described in the Schedule-B of the plaint is the suit land.

2. Sashidhar Phukan died in the year 1961 whereafter, the suit land together with other land covered by dag No. 1415 devolved upon his wife Hemalata Phukan and three daughters, i.e. plaintiff Nos. 2 to 4. Although Sashidhar Phukan died leaving behind the aforementioned four legal heirs, yet after his death the name of his wife Hemalata Phukan alone was recorded as the pattadar in respect of the suit land covered by dag No. 1414 and land covered by dag No. 1415 in place of Shashidhar Phukan. Being in need of money for making certain constructions Late Hemalata Phukan, during her life time, sold the suit land measuring 3 katha 4 lechas covered by dag No. 1414 of Patta No. 402 together with another adjacent plot covered by dag No. 1415 comprising a total area of 1 bigha 10 lechas of land, described in schedule - A to the plaint, by executing a registered deed of sale bearing No. 489/1986 dated 27.06.86 in favour of her son-in-law Devendra Nath Kakati i.e. father of the plaintiff No. 1. The aforesaid registered deed of sale was executed by Late Hemalata Phukan after obtaining consent of her three daughters i.e. plaintiff Nos. 2 to 4 herein. After execution of the aforesaid sale deed Devendra Nath Kakati was put in possession in respect of the Schedule-A land which he continued to possess by paying land revenue. Devendra Nath Kakati died in the month of May, 1992. After his death the Schedule-A land devolved upon his legal heirs, viz., plaintiff No. 1 i.e. his son, plaintiff No. 2 i.e. his wife and the pro-forma defendant Nos. A and B who are the married daughters. The plaintiff No. 4 as well as the proforma defendant Nos. A and B had relinquished their claim over the Schedule-A land in favour of the plaintiff No. 1 and as such he had become the exclusive owner of the Schedule-A land having possession over the same by right of inheritance being the legal heir of Devendra Nath Kakati.

3. The plaintiff's case is that he had constructed a house over the land covered by Dag No. 1415 and kept a man as caretaker to look after both the lands owned by him covered by dag Nos. 1414 and 1415. He has also been regularly paying land revenue in respect of the plot of land owned by him falling under both the aforementioned dags. On 11.03.2003 his caretaker Ramu Rai told the plaintiff that some persons were digging the suit land and on receiving the said information the plaintiff came to the land and found that the defendants No. 4 and 5, being accompanied by their men, were digging the suit land for making some constructions thereupon. On being questioned by the plaintiff the said defendant Nos. 4 and 5 told him that the defendant No. 4 had purchased the land from heirs of Late Dhananjoy Deori by registered deed of sale and would construct pucca boundary wall and building thereupon. Plaintiff No. 1 protested again