1.Heard Mr. S.K. Ghosh, learned Counsel for the appellants. Also heard Mr. A. Adhikari, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The plaintiff has filed the second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 21.06.2006, passed by the learned District Judge, Goalpara in Title Appeal No. 2/2003, dismissing the appeal and upholding the judgment and decree dated 23.05.2003, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Goalpara in Title Suit No. 6/2000, whereby the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed.

3. The defendant No. 1 in the suit is daughter of Hemkanta Rabha and defendant No. 2 is her husband. Defendant No. 3 is a villager of the same village, of which, the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 are resident. Plaintiff Bhabani Prasad Rabha, Hemkanta Rabha and Bhong Rabha were three brothers. Bhong Rabha is the owner and possessor of 22 Bigha 3 Katha 1 Lecha of land as described in the schedule of the plaint. Bhong Rabha died in the year 1990 unmarried, leaving his two brothers as heirs. It was alleged in the plaint that the plaintiff was dispossessed from 4 Bigha 1 Katha 5 Lecha of land on 06.07.1999, which he was possessing during the life time of Bhong Rabha and the land was also mutated in his name. It is also alleged that defendant No. 3 along with other persons had been obstructing the plaintiff from taking possession of the land. It is the pleaded case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff is entitled to properties left behind by Hemkanta Rabha as he died leaving no male issue and survived by only defendant No. 1 daughter, who was also married, in view of the fact that according to old Hindu law and Rabha Customary Law, a married daughter is not entitled to inherit the properties of her father. Thus, the claim set up is that the plaintiff is entitled to the entire property which earlier belonged to Late Bhong Rabha.

4. The Plaintiff had prayed for the following reliefs:

“(i) declaration that the plaintiff is entitled to the properties i.e. the suit lands left by Bhong Rabha and Hemkanta Rabha,

(ii) possession of the suit lands,

(iii) injunction restraining the defendants and the villagers of the Kalajhar village not to disturb the plaintiff in taking possession of the suit lands and afterwards in his peaceful possession of the suit lands,

(iv) cost of the suit,

(v) any other relief to which the plaintiff is entitled in law and equity.”

5. The defendant No. 1 filed written statement stating, amongst others, that the plaintiff fraudulently got his name mutated in respect of 4 Bigha 1 Katha 5 Lecha of land and that she had filed objection to cancel the aforesaid mutation. It is asserted that Hindu Succession Act, 1956, for short, the Succession Act, is applicable to the Rabha community. As Bhong Rabha was suffering from leprosy, the plaintiff shifted to a distance place. However, father of the defendant No. 1 nursed the ailing Bhong Rabha, provided shelter to him, and ultimately, he did in his place. Bhong Rabha executed an unregistered sale deed and delivered possession to the father of the defendant No. 1 on 12.07.1990 promising to execute a registered sale deed. But before execution of the sale deed, Bhong Rabha died.

6. On the basis of the pleadings, the following issues were framed by the learned Trial Court.

“1. Whether there is cause of action for the suit filed by the plaintiff Shri Bhabani Prasad Rabha?

2. Whether the defendant No. 3 along with other villagers dispossessed the plaintiff from 4 B – 1 K – 5 L of land covered by Dag No. 64 of village Ghorapota under Matia Circle?

3. Whether the plaintiff got his name mutated fraudulently in collusion with officials?

4. Whether the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 is applicable to the Rabhas?

5. Whether Rabha customary law empowers daughter to inherit father’s property?

6. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the properties i.e. the lands left by Bhong Rabha and Hemkanta Rabha?

7. Whether Bhong Rabha sold his 22 B – 3 K – 1 Lecha to Hemkanta Rabha by unregistered sale deed a