Heard Mr. B. N. Sarma, learned counsel for the appellants/defendants. Also heard Mr. K. Sarma, learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs.

2. This appeal is preferred by the defendants against the judgment and decree dated 24.03.2006, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Barpeta, in Title Appeal No. 56/2005, allowing the appeal and reversing the judgment and decree dated 23.09.1995, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Barpeta, in Title Suit No. 107/99, whereby the suit of the plaintiffs was dismissed.

3. Plaintiff No. 1 is the wife of plaintiff No. 2. The case projected in the plaint, shorn of details, is that in Schedule-‘A’ land, there is total 2 Bigha 2 Katha 13 Lecha of land covered by Dag No. 203 under K.P. Patta No. 128 at village Uttar Athiabari. In Dag No. 205 of K.P. Patta No. 129, and Dag No. 204 of K.P. Patta No. 129 of the same village, there is 2 Katha 9 Lecha 13 Lecha of land, respectively, and, thus, in Periodic Patta No. 129, there is 3 Katha 2 Lecha of land. Details in respect of land in K.P. Patta No. 129 are given in Schedule-‘B’.

4. Plaintiff No. 1 purchased 1 Katha 15 Lecha of land in Dag No. 203, within Schedule-’A’ land, which is described in Schedule-‘C’ of the plaint, by registered Sale Deed No. 632/89, dated 13.06.89, and plaintiff No. 2 purchased 1 Katha 18 Lecha, described in Schedule-‘D’, by another registered sale deed dated 28.12.89 from the same vendor vide registered sale deed No. 1649/89. Plaintiff No. 1 purchased another plot of land measuring 10 Lecha, in Dag No. 205, described in Schedule-‘E’, vide registered sale deed No. 66/91 dated 11.01.91. The three plots of land described in Schedule-‘C’, ‘D’ and ‘E’ were amalgamated by the plaintiffs. It is averred that while taking delivery of possession of the land, the plaintiffs could not take delivery of possession in the eastern boundary in a straight line due to the reason that a residential house, measuring 10’ X 12’ belonging to defendant No. 1 was found located on Schedule-’C’ land. The defendant No. 1 assured on the date of purchase of the Schedule-‘C’ land by the plaintiffs on 13.06.89 that he would remove the house and vacate the land within a short time and give delivery of the same to the plaintiffs. As the defendant No. 1 was going to be a neighbour of the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs believed the assurances given by the defendant No. 1. However, subsequently, in 1997, the defendant No. 1, instead of honouring his promise and assurances, started raising boundary disputes with the plaintiffs and refused to vacate the portion of the land, where the room was situated. In such circumstances, the plaintiffs constructed a brick-wall in the eastern boundary, touching the house of the defendant No. 1, which, however, was broken down by the defendants on 18.07.99 in absence of male members of the family of the plaintiffs. Prior to that incident, the defendant No. 1 attempted to raise a bamboo fencing encroaching a portion of the plaintiffs’ land, but such action was thwarted due to intervention of the neighbours. As the defendant No. 1 did not vacate the said portion of the land, the plaintiffs were granted mutation only in respect of 1 Katha 5 Lecha of land, though, as per Schedule-‘C’, they had purchased 1 Katha 15 Lecha.

5. Accordingly, the plaintiffs filed the suit for right, title, interest, recovery of possession, for partition of the suit land and for permanent injunction etc.

6. The defendants filed written statement raising, amongst others, a plea that the suit was barred by law of limitation and that it was also not maintainable for non-joinder of necessary parties. In the written statement, the defendants admitted that Radhikalal Saha, Narayan Saha and Krishta Mohan Saha, all sons of Nityananda Saha, as stated by the plaintiffs, had purchased 2 Bigha 2 Katha 13 Lecha of land and the predecessor of defendant No. 1, Krishnalal Saha, had purchased 2 Katha 3 Lecha of land from Krishta Mohan Saha an