This first appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 10.08.2005 passed by the learned District Judge, Dhemaji whereby Title Suit No. 8/2003 instituted by the present appellant was dismissed in entirety.

2. The present appellant, as plaintiffs, instituted Title Suit No. 8/2003 in the Court of learned District Judge, Dhemaji on 20.08.2003 stating that the land described in schedule to the plaint measuring 13 bigha 12 lecha originally belonged to one Horomohan Boro of village Pub Baligaon. Predecessor of the plaintiffs, Joydev Medhi being a friend of the original owner Horomohan Boro offered to purchase that land from him and as Horomohan Boro also wanted to leave the village, the whole of the land was sold to Joydev Medhi on realisation of a sum of Rs. 1,200/- and thereafter Horomohan Boro shifted to village Nalbari and purchased 17 bigha of land at a sum of Rs. 700/- out of the sale proceeds of his land in the village Pub Baligaon. The predecessor of the plaintiffs occupied the whole land and started living there but the family of the original owner remained in the place by amicable settlement with Joydev Medhi. Horomohan Boro, however, did not execute any sale deed to the plaintiffs on this or that plea stating that he was not in a position of a pattadar of the land. Be that as it may, in the year 1979, Horomohan Boro instituted Title Suit No. 8/79 in the Court of learned Munsiff, Dhemaji, inter alia, for recovery of 2 bigha 1 katha 12 lecha of land from Joydev Medhi. Joydev Medhi appeared and contested the suit and ultimately the suit was dismissed for default and it was neither restored nor was an appeal preferred there-against. The order dated 22.12.1979 attained finality. It is the further case of the plaintiffs that their predecessor continued possessing the land till it was discovered that the defendants of the suit got mutation in their favour over 13 bigha 12 lecha of land purchased by Joydev Medhi from Horomohan Boro and so submitted objection to the Revenue Authority for cancelation of mutation. The application was dismissed and an appeal was preferred there-against before Assam Board of Revenue which was also dismissed. There was a writ petition challenging the order passed by the Revenue Board and when the same was pending, the plaintiffs came to know about the execution of a sale deed by Horomohan Boro in favour of the defendants and so instituted the suit for declaration that the said sale deed bearing registration No. 158/85 purported to be made in favour of the defendants was fraudulent, forged and illegal, for cancellation of the mutation of the names of defendants and also for declaration of right, title and interest over the suit land described in Schedule ‘C’ to the plaint which is a part of Schedule ‘B’ land described in the plaint.

3. On being summoned, the defendants appeared and submitted written statement and claimed to have purchased the suit land by valid registered sale deed from Horomohan Boro on the basis of which their names were duly mutated in the Records of Rights. Upon perusal of the rival contentions of the parties, the learned trial court framed the following issues and allowed the parties to lead respective evidence for proving their respective cases.

i. Whether the sale ded No. 158/85 serial No. 426/85 of Dhemaji Sub Registry was a fabricated and forged document?

ii. Whether the mutation of the names of the defendant No. 1 on the basis of the alleged fabricated and forged document is liable to be cancelled?

iii. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to a decree for declaration fo title over the suit land as described in schedule ‘B’ of the plaint?

iv. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to a decree for declaration of title and confirmation of possession in respect of the land described in Schedule ‘C’ of the plaint?

v. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to a decree for declaration fo title and recovery of khas possession of the land described in the schedule ‘B’ of