1. This appeal, under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, C.P.C.) is directed against the judgment and decree, dated 08.06.1999 and 14.06.1999 respectively, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Dibrugarh, in Title Appeal No. 16 of 1997, whereby the first appellate Court, while dismissing the said appeal, up­held the judgment and decree, dated 04.09.1997 and 10.09.1997 respectively, passed by the learned Civil Judge No. 1 (Jr. Divn.), Dibrugarh, in Title Suit No. 38 of 1983. Hence, the challenge in this appeal is to the concurrent findings, rendered by both the Courts below.

2. Relevant facts of the suit, may, in brief, be stated as follows :

The plaintiff/appellant instituted the said title suit, against the principal defendants (defen­dant Nos. 1 & 2)/respondents, seeking a de­cree for declaration of right, title, interest, confirmation of possession and permanent injunction in respect of the suit land.

According to the plaintiff, he became the absolute owner of the suit land by virtue of purchase from its owner i.e. proforma defen­dant Nos. 3 and 6 and got possession in re­spect of the same; but the defendant Nos. 1 & 2. without having any right, title and inter­est had, on 29.05.1979, encroached upon the suit land by breaking down plaintiffs bam­boo fencing and collecting building materials on the encroached land, measuring about 15ft x 36 ft (about 4 lechas). Hence, the plaintiff brought the suit, seeking the said reliefs.

3. The principal defendants Nos. 1 and 2 contested the suit by filing written statement and alleging, therein, that the suit was hit by law of resjudicata and misjoinder of parties. Disputing the plaintiffs claim regarding pur­chase, the contesting defendants averred that the defendant No. 1 purchased 1 katha of land, as shown in the schedule to the written statement, by registered Sale Deed No. 2292, dated 10.09.1962 from the defendant Nos. 3 and 4 i.e. the original owner and got pos­session of the same followed by mutation and that the suit land is part of the said 1 katha of land. It has also been contended that, at the time of purchase by the defendant, the suit land was occupied by Mr. Gokul Shah and Mr. Jaduram Shah, as tenants under the origi­nal landlords, and due to their refusal to va­cate the land, the defendants had initiated Tide Suit No. 60 of 1965 for their ejectment there­from and that during the execution of the decree, obtained by the defendant, in respect of the suit land, the plaintiff had purchased the land with the structures standing thereon and put up the fencing.

It has also been pleaded, by the contest­ing defendants, that, in 1970, Smti Sanchari Devi and Smti Mawa Devi filed a suit chal­lenging the said decree, obtained by the de­fendants, but their suit was dismissed. There­fore, it has been averred, by the contesting defendants, that the proforma defendants i.e. the vendors of the plaintiff, had no saleable right to transfer the suit in favour of the plain­tiff and as such the plaintiff did not acquire any right, title and interest over the suit land.

4. Upon the pleadings of both the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues:

(i) Whether the suit is maintainable?

(ii) Whether plaintiff has right to sue?

(iii) Whether suit is barred by resjud­icata?

(iv) Whether suit is bad for mis-join­der and non-joinder of necessary perties?

(v) Whether there is cause of action?

(vi) Whether plaintiff has right, title and possession over the suit land?

(vii) Whether defendant No. 1 has acquired any right and title over the suit land? Whether defendant No. 1 has possession over the suit land, as claimed?

(viii) Whether plaintiffis entitled to de­cree, as claimed?

(ix) To what relief, parties are entitled?

5. In support of his case, the plaintiff ex­amined as many as six witnesses and exhib­ited some documents including the Sale Deed (Ext. No. 6). The contesting defendants also examined three witnesses and exhibited some documents, includin