N. Chaudhury, J.

1. The judgment of reversal passed by learned First Appellate Court allowing the appeal and setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court has been called in question in the present Second Appeal. Suit of the plaintiff for declaration of right, title and interest and for confirmation of possession was decreed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) No. 2, Karimganj by judgment and decree dated 19.12.2000 passed in Title Suit No. 136/1996. The said decree has been set aside by the learned First Appellate Court by his judgment and decree dated 26.09.2006 passed in Title Appeal No. 4/2001 and thereupon the present Second Appeal has arisen.

2. This Court while admitting the Second Appeal on 23.03.2007 framed three substantial questions of law which are quoted below:-

“(1) Whether the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned lower appellate court in setting aside the decree passed against all the plaintiffs by ignoring the order dated 9.5.06 passed by the learned lower appellate court in T.A. No. 4/2001 and thereby setting aside the decree passed by the trial court in its entirety are sustainable in law?

(2) Whether the impugned judgment an decree passed by the learned lower appellate court ignoring the averments made in the plaint regarding execution of the registered sale deed dated 23.12.73 by the predecessor of the defendant No. 1 and 2 in respect of the suit land in favour of the vendor of the predecessor of the plaintiffs and thereby in setting aside the decree passed by the trial court without affording an opportunity to the plaintiffs/appellants to prove the said document are sustainable in law?

(3) Whether the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned lower appellate court and thereby setting aside the decree passed by the learned trial court for grant of injunction ignoring the possessory title of the plaintiffs over the suit land are sustainable in law?”

3. Before going to adjudicate the substantial questions of law framed in the present Second Appeal it is necessary to have a bird's eye view of the facts involved in this litigation. As many as seven plaintiffs claiming to be successors of late Harendra Kumar Ghose instituted Title Suit No. 136/1996 in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) No. 2 at Karimganj stating that the suit land measuring 18 kedars of permanently settled estates under mouza Paharkitta in the district of Karimganj was originally under jote right of Satindra Nath Bhattacharjee as raiyot of Abdul Matin Choudhury and others. Satindra Nath Bhattacharjee transferred his jote right in favour of one Haribhajan Ghose, the predecessor-in-interest of the defendants No. 1 and 2 and handed over possession. This Haribhajan Ghose, in turn, by registered sale deed dated 07.01.1974 transferred the suit land in favour of one Binoy Bhusan Mazumdar and this Binoy Bhusan Mazumdar executed a registered sale deed in favour of Harendra Kumar Ghose, the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs and handed over possession. But the defendants without having any semblance of right, title or interest with respect to the suit land started publicizing that they would dispossess the plaintiffs forcibly on the basis of some fabricated sale deeds. Hence, the plaintiffs instituted the suit for declaration of the landholders' right with respect to the suit land and for confirmation of possession along with negative declaration that the defendants did not have any right, title or interest or possession over the suit land. Prayer for permanent and temporary prohibitory injunction was also made in the suit.

4. On being summoned the defendants appeared and submitted a joint written statement wherein they denied the claim of possession and title of the plaintiffs over the suit land. In paragraph 14 of the written statement they furnished their own facts wherein they also pleaded that Satindra Nath Bhattacharjee was the original holder of jote right over the