N. Chaudhury, J.

The two judgments and decrees passed by the learned courts below have been called in question in the present second appeal at the instance of the principal defendant. The suit of the plaintiffs for recovery of possession was decreed by the learned trial court and a first appeal preferred there-against having failed, the defendant has approached this court challenging the concurrent findings.

2. Dipak Bhuyan and 6 others, as plaintiffs, instituted title suit No. 40/1989 in the court of learned Munsiff No. 2 at Barpeta stating that their predecessor-in-interest Late Apurba Kumar Bhuyan was settled with the suit land measuring 2B 1K 10L covered by dag No. 834 and 828 at Metuakuchi by way of short lease by the Government and accordingly patta was issued. The whole land was described in schedule A to the plaint. It is alleged in paragraph 3 of the plaint that in the month of January, 1987, the principal defendant Sri Madhab Ch. Das without having any semblance of right, title and interest encroached 1K 11L of land at the northern part of the schedule 'A' land. This encroached land has been described in schedule B to the plaint. The plaintiffs further alleged that the Sub Deputy Collector by order dated 10.01.1990 recommended for cancellation of patta of the short lease and the Additional Deputy Commissioner by his order dated 27.02.1990 accordingly cancelled the patta. The plaintiffs, therefore, also made a prayer that aforesaid orders dated 10.01.1990 and 27.02.1990 passed by the Sub Deputy Collector and the Additional Deputy Collector respectively are liable to be adjudged illegal, inoperative etc. The State of Assam, the Deputy Commissioner and the Sub Deputy Collector were impleaded as proforma respondents as no specific prayer was made against them.

3. On being summoned, the principal defendant Madhab Ch. Das appeared and submitted a written statement. According to him, the plaintiffs were never in possession of the suit land and he had been in possession for time immemorial. He come to know that a patta was issued in the name of the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs also made a prayer for conversion of the short lease into a periodic patta. He objected to it and ultimately the SDC by order dated 10.01.1990 recommended for cancellation of the patta in N.R. Case No. 5/1987-88 and the ADC approved cancellation by order dated 27.02.1990. With these averments, the principal defendant prayed for dismissal of the suit with cost. The proforma defendants, namely, the State of Assam, the Sub Deputy Collector and the Additional Deputy Collector did not file any written statement even after being served with summons.

4. On the basis of the averments made by the parties in their respective pleadings, the learned trial court framed as many as 8 issues which are quoted below:-

1. Whether there is any cause of action for that suit?

2. Whether the suit is barred by limitation?

3. Whether the suit is undervalued and plaint is under stamped ?

4. Whether the suit is not maintainable u/s 154 of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation?

5. Whether the Govt. of Assam and the D.C. are necessary parties and if so whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of them?

6. Whether the plaintiff has right, title and interest over the suit land?

7. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for?

8. To what relief or reliefs the plaintiff is entitled under the law and equity?

5. The learned trial court after hearing the parties and on perusal of the materials available on record passed the impugned judgment and decree dated 30.09.1993 thereby holding that there is no necessity for declaration of right, title and interest of the plaintiffs over the suit land as the plaintiffs did not make any prayer for declaration of title in their favour. However, while deciding issue No. 7 as to relief available to the plaintiffs, the learned trial court was of the view that the plaintiffs entered into the suit land on being settled with it by