Nishitendu Chaudhury, J.

1. This Second Appeal has been preferred by the plaintiffs challenging the First Appellate Court judgment and decree whereby the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed by the First Appellate Court reversing the finding of the learned trial court. The plaintiff, Lankeshwar Deka, instituted Title Suit No. 286 of 1992 in the Court of learned Munsiff No. 3, Guwahati, stating that suit land measuring 1 Bigha was owned and possessed by him from its original owner Lohit Chandra Moral by registered sale deed No. 60 of 1974 dated 04.01.1974. It is the case of the plaintiff that he was in the service of the Government of Assam and his service was a transferable one. He claimed to have retired on 01.07.1990 and thereafter, decided to raise a residential house on the part of the aforesaid land measuring 1 Bigha. But the principal defendant No. 1 encroached the C Schedule land measuring 4 Chataks by force and converting the same into a path. Land described in Schedule B & Schedule C are parts of Schedule A which is claimed to have been purchased by the plaintiff on 04.01.1974 by registered sale deed No. 60 of 1974. The plaintiff claimed to have approached the learned Executive Magistrate by invoking Section 145/146 of the Code of Civil Procedure leading to restoring of 432 of 1991 but the same was decided against him on 01.08.1992 observing that C Schedule land is a public path in use by the people of locality for connecting Barbari Hills village to the P.W.D. road. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Executive Magistrate, plaintiff filed the suit praying for declaration of his right, title and interest over Schedule B land and for confirmation of possession thereon. On the order passed by the learned trial court proforma defendants No. 1 to 8 were impleaded in the case who also participated in the proceeding. In the written statement, it was the specific stand taken by the defendants that Schedule C land is apart of public path which connects the P.W.D. road with Barbari Hills Gaon over the land of so many parties including the defendants. While land owners of other lands do not have any objection for use of the land by the public for over 40 years, it is the plaintiff alone who has been raising objection after 40 years. The defendants prayed that the suit be dismissed with cost. Upon perusal of the rival contention of the parties the learned trial court framed as many as 7 issues which are quoted below:

1) Whether the suit is maintainable in law and facts?

2) Whether the suit is bad for nonjoinder of necessary parties?

3) Whether the suit is barred by limitation?

4) Whether the suit is properly valued and proper court fee has been paid?

5) Whether there exists public road over the disputed land from P.W.D. road to Barbari Hills and the same has been used by the villages from time immemorial?

6) Whether the plaintiff have right, title and interest over the Schedule B land and Schedule C land and whether the defendants and villagers have acquired easementary right over the suit land?

7) To what relief or reliefs the parties are entitled to under law and equity?

2. Out of the aforesaid issues, Issue No. 5 & 6 are the most relevant one inasmuch as the same is concerned with adjudication as to nature and character of Schedule C land. The plaintiff adduced 6 documents and examined 3 witnesses. On the other hand, the defendants examined 4 witnesses and adduced 14 documents to prove their respective case.

3. The learned trial court after perusal of the materials available on records and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties held that the plaintiff undoubtedly purchased the suit land by registered sale deed dated 04.01.1974 and no one has raised any doubt about title of the plaintiff over scheduled land. Without making any discussion in regard to evidence led by the defendants oral and documentary, the learned trial court held that road exists since 1990-91 and not in time immemorial and/or for 40 years ago as c