In this First Appeal preferred by the defendants, the judgment and decree dated 29.07.2005 passed by the learned Ad hoc Additional District Judge, Lakhimpur in Title Suit No.10 of 2003 has been challenged. The learned trial court by their judgments, decreed the suit of the plaintiffs for declaration of right, title and interest over Schedule ‘Ka’ land for recovery of possession of the same and also for realization of Rs.7,200/- towards compensation.

2. One Bholanteer Katoni as plaintiff No.1 and Samsuddin as plaintiff No.2 filed a Title Suit No.5 of 1998 in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) at North Lakhimpur on 15.05.1988 stating that land measuring 12 Bighas 2 Kathas 4 Lechas under Dag No.818/820/833/834/842/851/852/1077/1384 covered by K.P. Patta No.1542 of Kamalbaria village under Kamalabaria Mouza in the district of Lakhimpur was originally owned and possessed by one Bormukh Katoni. He died leaving behind his two sons, namely, Tileswar Katoni & Dehiram Katoni and so, both the sons became joint owners of the property. After death of Tileswar Katoni, plaintiff No.1 Bholanteer Katoni inherited his share of land and similarly, after death of Dehiram Katoni, defendants of the suit became legal heirs by inheritance. Thus, the plaintiff No.1 became entitled to 6 Bighas 1 Katha 2 Lechas of land under the aforesaid patta and dags and the defendants jointly became owners to the extent of balance 6 Bighas 1 Katha 2 Lechas of land of the same patta. Since, the plaintiff No.1 was minor when his father had died, he was reared by his uncle Dehiram Katoni as a member of the same family and thus, he was jointly possessing the whole property with his uncle. Dehiram Katoni arranged his marriage after he had grown up and even thereafter he stayed in the same family for some more years, continuing to enjoy the suit land and house. Thereafter, the plaintiff No.1 started staying in the house of his in-laws and allowed his uncle Dehiram Katoni to cultivate the land of his share and to give him the usufruct as and when necessary. Accordingly, Dehiram Katoni used to give rice, peddy etc to the plaintiff occasionally for his consumption. Under such circumstances, the plaintiff No.1 got the property partitioned by filing perfect partition Case No.67 of 1986/87 before the Revenue Authority. In the year 1989 being in urgent need of money plaintiff No.1 sold land described in Schedule-‘Kha’ which is a part of the Schedule ‘Ka’ land to the plaintiff No.2 vide registered sale deed No.513/1989 within specific boundaries and handed over the possession to the plaintiff No.2. Accordingly, the plaintiff No.2 got his name duly mutated in the records of rights vide order dated 19.11.1989 passed by the learned Additional Deputy Collector, North Lakhimpur in Patta No.818 Dag No.1384. The Circle Officer of North Lakhimpur by order dated 22.03.1993 partitioned the suit patta into equal two parts and thereby, original patta No.149 measuring 6 Bighas 1 Katha 2 Lechas were given to the defendants jointly and the balance 6 Bighas 1 Katha 2 Lechas was given to the plaintiff No.1 and a separate patta was prepared thereby. The defendants did not prefer any appeal against the order of partition and did not raise any objection as well. According to the plaintiffs, the defendants do not have any right, title and interest with respect to the suit property described in Schedule-‘Ka’ & ‘Kha’ and that the plaintiffs having been exclusive owner in possession in respect to the Schedule ‘Ka’ & ‘kha’ land since 1993 after partitioned. The defendants since that period did not give the share of usufruct to the plaintiffs because of which even if the period beyond limitation is excluded, the plaintiffs would be entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs.7,200/-, inasmuch as, the yield per bigha of the land has at least 2 maunds.

3. In Paragraph-5 of the plaint it is stated that although the plaintiffs are owner of Schedule ‘Ka’ and ‘Kha’ property but the defe