The plaintiff's failure to establish tenancy under the landlord and the non-compliance with the law regarding the transfer of land led to the dismissal of the appeal.

Heard Mr. A. B. Choudhury, learned Senior counsel, appearing for the appellant/plaintiff. None appears for the respondents despite the names of the counsel being shown in the cause-list.

2. This appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree dated 11.06.2005, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) No. 1, Silchar, in Title Appeal No. 11/2004, dismissing the appeal and upholding the judgment and decree dated 24.12.2003 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) No. 1, Silchar, in Title Suit No. 90/1998.

3. This appeal was admitted to be heard by an order dated 31.08.2005 on the following substantial question of law:

“Whether the learned lower Appellate Court erred in rejecting the appellant’s claim of occupancy tenant under the Assam Temporary Settled Areas Tenancy Act, 1971, by misconstruing the definitions of ‘landlord’ and ‘personal cultivation’ provided therein?”

4. The plaintiff had filed the suit for a decree of declaration of the right of occupancy tenant in respect of a piece of land measuring 14 Bighas 15 Chataks, for confirmation of possession over the suit land, for declaration declaring that the defendants had no right, title and interest over the suit land, for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the suit land, etc.

5. The case, as projected in the plaint, in a nutshell, is that Joyshree Tea and Industry Ltd. was the owner of the suit land and one Tulsi Goala was occupying the suit land as tenant. Subsequently, due to various sale transactions, one Prakash Goala, predecessor-in-interest of the defendants, who was an occupancy tenant in respect of the suit land, had sold the suit land on 13.02.1981 to the plaintiff on receipt of valuable consideration and delivered khas possession of the said land and, thereafter, the plaintiff started possessing the same by doing cultivation of paddy thereon. With the passage of time, he had also acquired the status of occupancy tenant over the suit land. Since the month of July, 1995, the defendants started ploughing the land on their own and, in the month of August, 1996, tried to forcefully dispossess the plaintiff.

6. The defendants filed written statement and counter-claim. It was stated by them that the plaintiff was not a cultivator by profession and that he was serving as a Sepoy in the Department of Excise. Prakash Goala, the predecessor-in-interest of the defendants had approached the plaintiff for a loan of Rs. 8,000/- in respect of which, as a security, the suit land had been pledged as simple mortgage (Ejaranama) and, subsequently, the plaintiff fraudulently manufactured a sale deed on 13.02.1981 by forging the signature of attesting witnesses and the father of the defendants. When the amount of loan was returned, the plaintiff did not return the deed of Ejaranama on the ground that the same was not traceable and, subsequently, came to learn about the alleged sale deed. It is contended that at the time when the sale deed was allegedly executed, Prakash Goala had no saleable interest thereon. Accordingly, the defendants, while praying for dismissal of the suit, also prayed for a declaration that the Sale Deed No. 300 dated 13.02.1981, executed in favour of the plaintiff, is fraudulent and illegal, etc., that the plaintiff has no right to possess the suit land and for a further declaration that the defendants had acquired valuable right in respect of the land and for injunction etc.

7. On the basis of the pleadings, 7 (seven) issues were framed by the learned trial Court, which are as follows:

“1. Is there any cause of action for the suit?

2. Is the suit maintainable in its present form and manner?

3. Is the suit defective for non-joinder of necessary parties?

4. Has the plaintiff occupancy right and possession over the suit land?

5. Had the defendants illegally attempted to dispossess the plaintiff from the possession of the suit land?

6. Is the