Heard Mr. J. Ahmed, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. S. Sahu, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 27.1.2006 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sonitpur, at Tezpur, in Title Appeal No. 9/2000 dismissing the appeal and affirming the judgment and decree dated 13.3.2000 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) No. 2, Sonitpur, at Tezpur, in Title Suit No. 69/1981, whereby the suit of the plaintiffs was dismissed.

3. The second appeal was admitted to be heard by an order dated 17.7.2014 on the following substantial questions of law:

“1. Whether the first appellate Court was justified in confirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial court which had dismissed plaintiff’s suit for declaration of right, title and interest in the suit land?

2. In the absence of any discussion, finding and much less appreciation of evidence made by the first appellate Court on material issue No. 8, 9 and 11 and specially issue No. 8, whether lower appellate Court was justified in simply confirming the finding of the trial court on these issues?

3. Whether lower appellate Court was justified in holding that plaintiff was not able to establish his right, title and interest on the suit land without there being any discussion much less appreciation of pleadings/evidence adduced by the plaintiff to prove his title over the suit land?

4. Whether lower appellate Court was justified in holding that defendants were able establish their right, title and interest on the suit land by proving their adverse possession and if so whether there was proper pleading and evidence on record to give such finding in defendant’s favour for conferring title on the strength of adverse possession?”

4. During the course of hearing, two more substantial questions of law were formulated and they read as follows:

“5. Whether the learned courts below were correct in holding in issue No. 2 that the suit of the plaintiffs is barred by limitation?

6. Whether the impugned judgment of the lower appellate court is a judgment in terms of Order 41 Rule 31 CPC?”

5. The plaintiff Nos. 1 and 2 are the sons of late Maya Ram Koch and the plaintiff No. 3, Duleswari, is Maya Ram’s daughter. Maya Ram Koch was son of Mossai. Mossai had two brothers, namely, Motia and Tahi. Tahi had no heir. Proforma defendant No. 3 is the son of Kolai. Kolai had another son by the name of Phanidhar, who expired and his sons, Lalit and Mukut are arrayed as proforma defendant Nos. 4 and 5. The plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration of right, title and interest over Schedule-A and B land and for prohibitory injunction. The pleaded case of the plaintiffs is that Schedule-A land measuring 2 bigha and 18 lechas covered by Dag No. 385(old) 404 (new) of Patta No. 21 (old) 144 (new) of Mazgaon under Mouza-Bhairabpad in the district of Sonitpur, with a specific boundary, was divided pursuant to a mutual arrangement entered into by and between Kolai, son of Motia, and Maya Ram Koch. Maya Ram Koch took 2/3rd portion of Schedule-A land on the western side and Kolai got 1/3rd in the eastern portion of the land and accordingly, the plaintiffs and the proforma defendants are possessing their respective portions of the land. It is stated that on 24.9.1981, the plaintiffs came to know that the defendant Nos. 1 and 2, who had no manner of right, title and interest over Schedule-A land, was offering 3 katha 13 lechas of land for sale, which is described in Schedule-B to the plaint forming 2/3rd of the western portion. Apprehending foul play, Record of Rights were inspected and the draft Jamabandi revealed that the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 surreptitiously got their names mutated as co-owners in respect of 3 katha 13 lechas of land out of the total land in the patta. Previous Jamabandi disclosed mutation in the name of one Ghana Kanta Das followed by the name of Gagan Chandra Das. Gagan Chandra Das is the son of late