1. This second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 24.09.2013 passed by the Additional District Judge No. 2, Kamrup in Title Appeal No. 2/2011 upholding the judgment and decree dated 26.11.2010 passed in Title Suit No. 52/2008 by the Civil Judge No. 3, whereby and whereunder decreeing the suit of the plaintiff/respondent for declaration of right, title, interest, recovery of khas possession and permanent injunction.

2. The respondent/plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff) purchased the suit land measuring 1 (one) katha 2 (two) lechas covered by Dag No. 893, K.P. Patta No. 25 (new)/332 (old) of village-Sahar Ulubari, Pt-II, Mouza-Ulubari, Dist-Kamrup from Ajimuddin Ahmed and Tafiqul Hussain @ Syed Tafiqul Hussain by registered Sale Deed No. 1930/97 dated 08.04.1997 and took possession thereof. The plaintiff further pleaded that the original pattadar of the suit land was Annaram Kalita and the vendor of the plaintiff purchased the suit land from Annaram Kalita in 1983. In the month of March, 1998, taking advantage of absence of the plaintiff, the defendant with the help of some hired persons forcibly trespassed into the suit land and thereby dispossessed the plaintiff compelling him to institute the suit for declaration of right, title, interest, recovery of possession and permanent injunction.

3. In obedience to the summon issued by the Court, the appellant/defendant (hereinafter referred to as the defendant) entered appearance and contested the suit raising the plea that one Lal Bahadur Chetri was the owner of the suit land and in 1970 he possessed the suit land with the knowledge of Lal Bahadur Chetri. Thereafter the said owner asked him to vacate the suit land, but he refused and has been possessing the suit land continuously by constructing houses. The defendant further pleaded that the plaintiff or vendor of the plaintiff never possessed the suit land and the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff and also in favour of the vendor of the plaintiff as well as their mutation were mere paper works, inasmuch as, neither the plaintiff nor his vendor or vendor’s vendor ever possessed the suit land. The defendant further pleaded that Annaram Kalita, the plaintiff as well as the vendor of the plaintiff, Ajimuddin Ahmed and Tafiqul Hussain also asked the defendant to vacate the suit land, but he refused. The defendant has also put up a plea of adverse possession.

4. On the pleadings of both the parties, the learned Trial Court framed the following issues:

“1. Whether there is cause of action of the suit?

2. Whether the suit is maintainable in the present form and order?

3. Whether the suit is properly valued?

4. Whether the suit is barred by limitation?

5. Whether the suit is bad for non joinder of necessary party?

6. Whether the plaintiff has acquired right title and interest over the suit land and as such entitled to get a decree as prayed for?

7. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of recovery of possession as well as restoration of possession of the suit land as directed in the plea?

8. What other relief/reliefs the parties are entitled to get?”

5. During the course of trial, the plaintiff examined three witnesses including the plaintiff himself and proved various documents including the sale deed, mutation orders, certified copies of jamabandi, revenue receipts etc. The defendant also examined three witnesses. Having considered the evidence brought on record and hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned Trial Court decreed the suit declaring right, title and interest of the plaintiff and other consequential reliefs sought for.

6. Aggrieved by and dissatisfied with by the judgment and decree of the learned Trial Court, the defendant preferred an appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, No. 3 and the learned Additional District Judge after hearing both the sides, by the impugned judgment and order, upheld the decree of the learned Trial Court.

7. Aggrieve