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 a