This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 30.05.2012 rendered by learned Civil Judge, Sonitpur, Tezpur in T.A. No. 3 of 2011 dismissing the appeal questioning the judgment and decree dated 15.03.2011 rendered by Munsiff No. 1, Sonitpur, Tezpur, in T.S. No. 5 of 2004 decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs.

2. Heard Mr. J. Deka, learned C.G.C. for the appellant. Also heard Mr. K. Bhatta, learned Senior Ccounsel assisted by Mr. D.C. K. Hazarika for the respondents.

3. The facts necessary for disposal of the present appeal, in brief, are that the respondent No. 2 and 3 herein (who would be referred to as plaintiff Nos. 1 and 2 respectively), filed Title Suit No. 5 of 2004 against the appellant herein (who would be referred to as the defendant) seeking a decree for permanent and perpetual injunction restraining and prohibiting the defendant therein and its officers and employees from raising any construction on the land, more particularly described in the Schedule B and C of the plaint.

4. It is the case of the plaintiff that one Punya Prabha Hazarika (since deceased) was the mother of the plaintiff No. 1 as well as one Dr. Bani Hazarika was the absolute owner of the land measuring 2Bs 4 Ks 10Ls, covered by Periodic Patta No. 340 (old)/343 (new) under Dag No. 797 of Tezpur town, 2nd part Mouza, Mahabhairab, PS- Tezpur, in the district of Sonitpur.

5. After her death on 09.08.1995, the plaintiff No. 1 and his elder sister Smti Bani Hazarika became the absolute owners of the said plot of land and accordingly, their names were mutated in the record of rights. During her life time, Late Punya Prabha Hazarika equally divided the said land between plaintiff No. 1 and his elder sister Dr. Bani Hazarika and accordingly, said Bani Hazarika became the owner of half of the share of land, same being 1B 2Ks 5Ls.

6. Even thereafter, the plaintiff No. 1 used to manage the land of Dr. Bani Hazarika in the suit patta over which there are houses and other structures which were let out to Subsidiary Intelligent Bureau (in short, ‘SIB’), Govt. of India, the defendant in the suit. In 2002, the plaintiff No. 2 purchased a plot of land measuring 4Ks 4Ls out of total land measuring 2 Bs 4Ks 10 Ls from Dr. Bani Hazarika on the basis of registered Sale Deed No. 660 and on the same day, the possession of such land was delivered to plaintiff No. 2.

7. Thereafter, Dr. Bani Hazarika remained the owner of 3 Ks 1 Ls of land in the aforesaid plot of land. The land, so purchased by plaintiff No. 2 is specifically described in the Schedule ‘B’ to the plaint and portion of the land which is in the occupation of plaintiff No. 1 is mentioned in the Schedule ‘C’ of the plaint. In due course, the plaintiff No. 2 also got his name mutated in respect of the land in Schedule ‘B’ to the plaint in the relevant record of rights and since then he has possessed the aforesaid land as the owner thereof on paying revenue therefor regularly.

8. However, the officers and employees of the defendant most illegally threatened to construct a pucca house and structures on the land described as Schedule B & C to the plaint by evicting the plaintiffs there-from by force and the defendant did so in spite of the fact that it had no right, title and interest over the aforesaid land since the defendant has been occupying a part of the aforesaid plot of land only as monthly tenant under Dr. Bani Hazarika.

9. Since the defendant had been trying to evict the plaintiffs from the land in Schedule ‘B & C’ to the plaint, over which they have no right, title and interest, such action on the part of the defendant clouded their right, title and interest of plaintiffs over the aforesaid land and as such, they approached the Civil Court by way of Title Suit No. 5 of 2004 praying for the aforesaid relief.

10. After receipt of the summons, the defendant contested the suit having filed written statement, stating, among other things, that the suit is not maintainable in law and facts, that the su