Suman Shyam, J.

1. This Second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 19.05.2009 passed by the learned Civil Judge, No. 1, Cachar, Silchar in Title Appeal No. 28/2006 allowing the appeal by reversing the judgment and decree dated 07.06.2006 passed by the learned Munsiff No. 1, Cachar, Silchar in Title Appeal No. 125/2006 dismissing the plaintiff's suit.

2. The brief facts of the case as is apparent from the pleadings is that a plot of land measuring 1 bigha 13 kathas 4 chataks of 2nd R.S. Patta No. 241 of Dag No. 738 appertaining to Mouza-Dudhpatil Part-VI in the district of Cachar, originally belonged to late Kunja Behari Singha. Kunja Bihari Singha died, leaving behind 3(three) sons and 6(six) daughters. The three sons of Kunja Behari Singh sold the suit land measuring 1 bigha 13 kathas 14 chataks to one Nanda Lal Singha by means of registered sale deed dated 17.05.1943. Thereafter, the aforesaid plot of land was again purchased back by the 3(three) brothers by means of registered deed of sale dated 18.08.1982 from Nanda Lal Singha. The 3(three) brothers are Krishna Prasad Singha, Chaitanya Prasad Singha and the plaintiff, all of whom are the sons of Kunja Behari Singha.

3. It is the case of the plaintiff that after purchase of the land by means of registered deed of sale dated 18.08.1982, all the 3(three) brothers lived in the suit land by constructing residential houses thereupon. However, the elder brother of the plaintiff viz., Krishna Prasad Singha died unmarried. Later on, Chaitanya Prasad Singha had also died unmarried, as a result of which, the plaintiff being the sole legal heirs of his two brothers had become the absolute owner of the suit land. It is the case of the plaintiff that later on, the sisters of the plaintiff had also died. The defendant is the son of the youngest sister, namely, Tombi Devi. The plaintiff and his brothers had brought the defendant and allowed him to stay in the suit property so as to permit him to complete his education, the expenses of which were also borne by the plaintiff and his brothers. The defendant completed his education and got a job in AIR. On being asked to vacate the suit land, the defendants refused to do so although he was the permissive occupier in respect of the suit land. As such, the plaintiff has filed the suit land praying for declaration of his right, title and interest over the suit land for recovery of khas possession by evicting the defendants and by demolishing all unauthorized construction; permanent injunction and all other consequential reliefs.

4. The sole defendant had contested the plaintiff suit by filing the written statement, wherein, he took the plea that there was no cause of action for the suit and that the suit was also bad for non-joinder of necessary parties, namely the legal heirs of the sisters, their surviving sons and daughters. The defendant No. 1 categorically denied the claim of the plaintiff that he being the sole surviving legal heir had become the owner of the entire suit land.

5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, learned trial Court framed as many as 6(six) issues, which are as follows:-

"(1) Is there any cause of action for the suit?

(2) Is the suit maintainable in the present form?

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

(4) Whether the plaintiff has right, title and interest over the suit land?

(5) Whether the defendant is a licencee under the plaintiff over the suit land?

(6) To what relief, if any, the plaintiff is entitled to?"

The issue No. 3 and 4 were the key issues in the factual matrix of the case.

6. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and also considering the materials on record, the learned trial Court decided the issue in favour of the plaintiffs/respondents by holding that the suit was not bad for non-joinder of parties. However, as regards issue No. 4, the learned trial Court held that the plaintiff may have the right, title and interest in the property b