1. Plaintiffs of Title Suit No.113/1984 of the Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) No.1, Sonitpur at Tezpur being aggrieved by the first appellate judgment and decree dated 30.06.2004 in Title Appeal No.15/1998 of the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sonitpur at Tezpur has preferred this Second Appeal. The learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Tezpur had decreed the suit of the plaintiffs on 30.05.1998 declaring their right, title and interest over the suit land also for recovery of khas possession by evicting the defendants from the suit land measuring about 10 lechas covered by Dag No.2478 of NK Patta No.4 of Tezpur Town under Mahabhairab Mouza. The learned First Appellate Court reversed the decree of the learned trial Court and dismissed the suit holding that the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. Aggrieved, the present Second Appeal has been preferred by the plaintiffs.

2. The legal heirs of Late Birendra Chandra Ghatak as plaintiffs instituted Title Suit No.113/1984 in the Court of learned Sadar Munsiff at Tezpur stating that suit land measuring 1 Katha 15 Lechas were originally owned by Haleswar Debalaya of Tezpur under N.K. Patta No.5 and Dag No.2478. One Abdul Hakim possessed the suit land and he thereafter by executing a registered sale deed on 23.01.1947 transferred the land to one Jagadish Chandra Dutta along with house standing thereon. Jagadish Chandra Dutta improved the land and made some constructions thereon and also obtained another registered document from the Sebait of Haleswar Debalaya on 05.03.1953. He got his name mutated in the records of rights on the basis of the aforesaid purchase deeds. Thereafter, he sold the suit land measuring 1 katha 15 lechas along with residential house and latrine to one Birendra Chandra Ghatak on 27.12.1963 by executing a registered sale deed and handed over possession. Upon death of Birendra Chandra Ghatak the plaintiffs being his legal heirs inherited the right, title and interest and continued possessing and enjoying the same. But on 16.11.1984 the defendants who are owner in occupation of the adjacent northern plot trespassed into the land and dispossessed the plaintiffs from about 10 lechas of land by demolishing a pucca structure of two seater latrine. The suit, therefore, was instituted for delivery of khas possession by evicting the defendants from the suit land and also for compensation of Rs.3000/- along with cost and consequential injunction etc.

3. On being summoned the defendants appeared and submitted a written statement denying the allegation of trespass and/or dispossession and even the title of the plaintiffs over the suit land. The defendants denied title of Abdul Hakim or Jagadish Chandra Dutta over the suit land and claimed that they have been possessing the suit land since 1967 without any hindrance from any quarter and as such the suit be dismissed with cost.

4. On the basis of the aforesaid pleadings of the parties the learned trial Court framed as many as 8 issues and the same are quoted below :-

“1. Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form?

2. Whether there is any cause of action for the suit?

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

4. Whether the plaintiffs have right, title and interest over the suit land?

5. Whether the defendants have been in peaceful possession of the suit land for long 18 years since 1967?

6. Whether the defendant demolished any two seated pucca latrine constructed by the plaintiffs on the suit land?

7. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to a decree as prayed for?

8. To what relief/reliefs are the parties entitled?”

5. In course of trial plaintiffs examined four witnesses and exhibited as many as 9 documents including sale deed dated 23.01.1947 (Ext-7), Sale deed dated 05.03.1953 (Ext-9), Sale deed dated 27.12.1963 (Ext-1) and Chita (Ext-2). The defendants, on the other hand, examined two witnesses and adduced documentary evidence including sale deed date