This second appeal has been preferred by the appellant-plaintiff against the concurrent findings arrived at by both the counts below dismissing the suit of the plaintiff-appellant.

2. The plaintiff filed a suit in the court of learned Assistant District Judge No.1, Cachar, Silchar praying for declaration of right, title and interest and recovery of khas possession of a plot of land measuring 11 kathas, 7 chataks, 8 gondas, 2 koras and 2 krantis appertaining to various dags and bounded by different boundaries mentioned in the schedule to the plaint. According to the plaintiff, the suit land along with other lands originally belonged to one Raj Kishore Nath and his brother Sarat Chandra Nath, who transferred the land in favour of one Haidar Mia Mazumdar. Haidar died leaving behind five sons, namely, Abdul Mazid, Abdul Rehman, Abdul Hamid, Abdul Manaf and Abdul Khalek. The four sons of Haider Mia out of the aforesaid five sons, namely, Abdul Manaf, Amdul Mazid and Abdul Rehman transferred their shares in various dags arid pattas in favour of Namar Ali. Namar AH also purchased the share of Abdul Hamid and, thus, Namar AH purchased the title of four sons of Haider Ali leaving only one son, namely, Abdul Khalique. According to the plaintiff, Namar Ali being in possession of the land within the definite boundary sold the said land to him by a registered sale deed dated 14.9.1995 (ljlxt.4) and handed over possession. Consequently, the plaintiff continued in enjoining the same until he was dispossessed by the defendant No.1, namely, Alauddin Laskar. According to the plaintiff, there was a proceeding under section 145, Cr.PC being Case No.389(M)/1995, but after the said proceeding was dropped, on 30.11.1995 the defendant dispossessed him and in the meantime, in collusion with the predecessor-in-interest of the pro forma defendant executed a sale deed on 27.10.1995 with regard to the suit land. The said vendor, i.e., the remaining sons of Haidar Mia never owned or possessed the land in question. The plaintiff, therefore, made a prayer that the said sale deed be declared void, illegal, inoperative and liable to be delivered up and cancelled. While pro forma defendant did not contest the suit, the principal defendant No.l Alauddin Laskar submitted the written statement.. The specific stand in the written statement of the said defendant is that in a particular dag, namely, dag No.85, the vendor of the plaintiff had acquired only 13 kathas, 8 chataks, 12 gondas. It is curious to mention here that the land originally belonged to Raj Kishore Nath, who sold out to Haidar Mia and thereafter Haidar Mia sold it to Namar Ali who, in turn, sold his share to plaintiff. Similarly, one son of Haidar Mia transferred his title in favour of the contesting defendant No. 1. This transaction having taken placed over a long period of years, two successive settlement operations had been conducted during the intervening period and as such, Dag Nos. and Patta Nos. mentioned in various sale deeds virtually became confusing. Be that as it may, the Ext. 4, sale deed by which the plaintiff claimed to have been purchased the suit land measuring 11 kathas, 7 chataks, 8 gondas, 2 koras, 2 krantis are described within the specific boundaries. But the defendant did not mention as to whether the shares of five sons of Haidar Mia had title in other dags and as to whether there was at all any possession by metes and bounds corresponding to dags and pattas of the land in question; or as to whether amicable family settlement as claimed by the plaintiff in the plaint on the basis of possession was, the base for enjoyment of land by heirs of Haidar Mia and sold to their respective vendees.

3. The learned trial court on the basis of the aforesaid pleadings framed as many as nine issues. Out of which Issue Nos. 7 and 8 relate to devolution of title on the plaintiff and validity of sale deed of the defendant No.l. The plaintiff examined altogether six witnesses and exhibited the sal

Click Here to Read the rest of this document