1. This second appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree of reversal dated 15-12-2006 passed by the court of Civil Judge, Sonitpur, Tezpur in Title Appeal No. 12-2006 reversing the judgment and decree dated 04-07-2006 passed by the learned Munsiff, Sonitpur, Tezpur in Title Suit No. 46/2002 dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiff.

2. This second appeal has been preferred by the defendants/appellants, which was admitted to formal hearing by framing the following two substantial questions of law:

“(1) Whether, the learned lower appellate court erred in decreeing the suit in absence of the State of Assam, the land being a government land?

(2) Whether, the learned lower appellate court erred in declaring the right, title and interest of the respondent plaintiff in the suit land which is a government land on the basis of an unregistered sale deed dated 21.5.2001, Ext.20.”

3. The case of the plaintiff is that the suit land originally belong to one Ratneswar Talukdar who had sold the same to proforma defendant No. 6 i.e. Ram Mohan Pathak in the year 1963. One Kanak Dutta was occupying the land and house standing thereupon as a tenant under the proforma defendant No. 6 by paying monthly rent. After the death of Kanak Dutta in the year 1990 the defendant Nos. 1 to 5, being the legal heirs of Kanak Dutta, continued to remain in occupation of the suit house as a tenant under the proforma defendant No. 6 on condition of paying monthly rent. It is the claim of the plaintiff that on 21-05-2001 the proforma defendant No. 6 had executed one unregistered deed of sale by means of which the suit land and the house standing thereupon had been transferred in favour of the plaintiff. Thereafter the defendants have been paying rent to the plaintiff as per verbal tenancy agreement until the month of May, 2002. But, thereafter the contesting defendants stopped paying rent and on the contrary, entered the name of defendant No. 1 in the chittha by influencing revenue authorities thereby clouding the title of the plaintiff. As such, the plaintiff had to institute the suit for declaration of right, title and interest over the suit land and for confirmation of possession as well as for permanent injunction.

4. On receipt of summons the defendant No. 1 and 2 contested the suit by filing their written statement, inter alia, alleging that there was no cause of action for the suit and that the suit was bad for non-joinder of necessary party. The answering defendant had also categorically denied the title and possession of the plaintiff over the suit land. The contesting defendants have also questioned the validity of the transaction allegedly made by the proforma defendant in favour of the plaintiff by executing an unregistered deed of sale.

5. The proforma defendant filed written statement whereby he has supported the case of the plaintiff.

6. Based on the pleadings of the parties the learned Trial Court had framed the following issues:-

1. Whether there is cause of action for the suit?

2. Whether the suit is barred by principles of estoppels, waiver and acquiescence?

3. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties?

4. Whether the sale deed executed in favour of the plaintiff is a valid Sale Deed?

5. Whether the plaintiff has any right over the suit property which is being acquired by virtue of the said Sale Deed?

6. Whether the transfer of holding number to the name of the plaintiff by the Tezpur Municipal Board is a valid one?

7. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the reliefs claimed for?

8. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any other relief?

7. On consideration of pleadings as well as evidence available on record, the learned Trial Court had decided the issue No. 3, 4 and 5 against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendant thereby holding that the suit was bad for non-joinder of State of Assam as a party and also that the plaintiff had failed to prove his right, title and interest over the suit land, the same bein