Heard Mr. A.R. Sikdar, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. M.A. Sheikh, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3.

2. This appeal is preferred by the plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 11.2.2011 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, (FTC), Barpeta in Title Appeal No. 14/2005 dismissing the appeal and affirming the judgment and decree dated 6.10.2005 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) Barpeta, in Title Suit No. 7/2002, whereby the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed and the counter-claim of the defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 3 was decreed.

3. The appeal was admitted to be heard by an order dated 18.1.2012 on the following substantial question of law:-

“1. Whether the learned courts below are justified in dismissing the suit of the plaintiff as barred by time, in view of Article 64 of the Schedule of the Limitation Act, the suit of the plaintiff being the suit for declaration of right, title and interest and possession based on title and being governed by Article 65 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act?”

4. Today after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, one more substantial question of law is formulated to the following effect:-

“2. Whether the finding recorded by the learned courts below that the plaintiff dispossessed the defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 3 is perverse to the materials on record.”

5. Though one more substantial question of law is formulated today, the learned counsel for the parties submit that they are ready with the case and are prepared to argue the case today itself and that they will not seek any adjournment and accordingly, on that basis hearing has continued.

6. The case of the plaintiff, as projected in the plaint, is that he had purchased Schedule B land measuring 3 katha 8 lecha out of Schedule A land measuring 5 bigha 4 katha 8 lecha in the year 1965 and his name was also mutated on 1.3.1966. While he was so in possession, defendants threatened to dispossess him on 21.3.2002 and on the basis of the said threat of dispossession, the suit was filed by the plaintiff praying for right, title, interest and confirmation of possession over the Schedule B land; partition of the plaintiff’s share of the suit land out of Schedule A land; permanent injunction etc.

7. The defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 3 filed a written statement and a counter-claim. Besides taking various legal pleas such as no cause of action, non-maintainability of the suit etc., it is pleaded that the plaintiff, principal defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and the profroma defendants are the pattadars of Schedule A land. The plaintiff and one Naimuddin had purchased 1 bigha 1 katha 16 lecha of land in equal share with specific boundary and on the basis of such purchase, mutation was granted to plaintiff and Naimuddin on 1.3.1966 by an order passed by the Sub Deputy Collector. The plaintiff was in possession of 3 katha 8 lecha in the eastern part and Naimuddin was in possession of 3 katha 8 lecha in the western part. The plaintiff had another plot of land in a separate Dag to the west of the land measuring 1 bigha 1 katha 16 lecha of land. On the death of Naimuddin, by an order dated 2.1.1977 passed by the Sub Deputy Collector, the names of five sons of Naimuddin including that of Abed Ali and Sabed Ali were mutated in respect of 3 katha 8 lecha of land. Subsequently, Abed Ali and Sabed Ali executed two registered sale deeds, being sale deed Nos. 3144/83 and 3145/83 dated 13.3.1984, each conveying 15 lecha, totaling 1 katha 10 lecha, to the defendants and delivered possession. The defendants also got their names mutated on 28.2.1987. There were valuable trees over the land purchased by the defendants, who resided 9 kilometers away from the disputed land and taking advantage of the same, the plaintiff forcibly entered into the said 1 katha 10 lecha of land on 19.3.2002, removed some valuable trees and constructed a temporary challi thereby dispossessing the defendants illegally. It is averred that t