Heard Mr. B.D. Goswami, learned counsel for the appellants. Also heard Mr. A.C. Sarma, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. This appeal is preferred by the successors of the original defendant against the judgment and decree dated 13.11.2003 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.) No.2, Guwahati in Title Appeal No.40/2002 dismissing the appeal and affirming the judgment and decree dated 30.04.2002 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.) No.1, Guwahati in Title Suit No. 101/1995.

3. The second appeal was admitted to be heard by an order dated 06.04.2004 on the following substantial questions of law:

“1. Whether power of attorney-holder can depose in the case on behalf of the Principal in the absence of any infirmity of the Principal in view of Section 2 of the Power of Attorney Act and Order XXXII Rule15 CPC?

2. Whether in a suit decree of eviction can be passed in absence of proof of right, title over the suit land ?

3. Whether a Court can allow an agent of the plaintiff to plead the case of the plaintiff on the basis of an unregistered power of attorney?”

4. The plaintiff filed the suit through her attorney, who is her husband, for right, title and interest in respect of 3 Katha 10 Lecha of land covered by Dag No.2335, Dag No.2336, Dag No.2334 and Dag No.2341/3685 covered by K.P. Patta No.2198 of Sahar Sarania, 2nd Khanda, Mouza- Ulubari with a two-storied RCC building, a thatched house, etc. described fully in the Schedule-A of the plaint and for decree of eviction of the defendant from the Schedule-B within the Schedule-A land.

5. The claim of the plaintiff was based on two sale deeds ? Sale Deed No.5690 dated 03.06.1974 covering an area of 1 Katha 10 Lecha, the vendor being Smti. Banamali Das and another Sale Deed No.5788 dated 04.06.1974 measuring area of 2 Katha, vendor of which is one Smti Banalata Das. Both the land is under K.P. Patta No.918 and she was delivered possession. Together, they formed the Schedule-A land. Her name was mutated by an order dated 06.05.1975 and she constructed pucca boundary walls and raised a two-storied building thereon. For construction of the building, a thatched house was raised which was later on used as a shed for the Chowkidar. The defendant was a Mechanic by profession and he was allowed to reside in the thatched house as a permissive occupier in the year 1989-90 for three months while serving as Driver-cum-Chowkidar. He stopped working for the plaintiff and when requested to vacate, he promised that he would do so on arrangement of an alternative accommodation. However, instead of vacating, the defendant, stealthily and surreptitiously, obtained a Holding No. from the Guwahati Municipal Corporation by submitting revenue payment receipts in respect of different patta land and complaint being lodged by the plaintiff, the Holding was cancelled. This prompted the defendant to file a Title Suit being Title Suit No.59/92 in the Court of Munsiff No.2 at Guwahati. In the said suit, defendant claimed that the land was covered by Dag No.2336 of K.P. Patta No.673. The suit was dismissed by a judgment and decree dated 21.02.1994. On the dismissal of the Title Suit No.59/1992, the defendant had preferred an appeal being Title Appeal No.12/1994. Title Appeal No.12/1994 was allowed remanding the case to the learned Trial Court for fresh disposal and the suit was pending. It is further pleaded that during the re-settlement operation, Schedule-A land was included in Dag No.2322 of K.P. Patta No.760 along with 12 pattadars. Subsequently, on her petition, separate K.P. Patta No.2198 was issued in respect of dags which are mentioned in the Schedule-A.

6. Mr. Goswami has submitted that on remand the learned Trial Court again dismissed the suit. The plaintiff (the defendant herein) did not pursue the matter thereafter.

7. The defendant had filed written statement contending that plaintiff is not the owner of the suit land and that she did not construct the thatched house. The boundar