Heard Mr. N. Dhar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants. Also heard Mr. P.K. Kalita, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.

2. The appellants before this Court are the defendants in Title Suit No. 50/94 which was filed by the plaintiff/respondent in the Court of Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.) No. 2, at Nagaon.

3. The facts, banking on which the plaintiff/respondent filed Title Suit No. 50/94, within a short compass is that suit land measuring 15 bighas 3 Kathas 5 Lechas covered by Dag No. 258, 286, 187, 326 and 327 of 1968-69 settlement situated in Chankhula under Gurubat Mouza in the District of Nagaon, originally belonged to Mohiran Nessa, the mother of the plaintiff/respondent. Mohiran Nessa died on 27.11.1992 leaving the plaintiff/respondent as her sole legal heir. The mother of the plaintiff/respondent married one Babar Ali who had also a second wife and from her side, Alaluddin and Jalaluddin are the sons who are impleaded in the Title Suit as the principal defendants No. 1 & 2. After the death of the mother of the plaintiff, the suit land measuring 15 bighas 3 Kathas 5 Lechas referred hereinabove was looked after by her husband Babar Ali (the father of the plaintiff). Mohiran Nessa died on 27.11.1992 and in the month of December, 1992, the plaintiff/respondent came to know that the principal defendant Nos. 1 & 2 got their names mutated over 6 Bighas 2 Kathas 10 Lechas of land. Having the said information, the plaintiff/respondent through her husband filed an application for cancellation of the names of the principal defendants No. 1 & 2 and vide order dated 18.01.1993, the Circle Officer, Kampur cancelled the said names of the principal defendants No. 1 & 2. Again the said defendants No. 1 & 2 filed two separate Misc. Cases for mutation of their names and on 31.07.1993, the plaintiff/respondent came to know that out of 15 Bighas 3 Kathas 5 Lechas of land (the suit land), the principal defendants No. 1 & 2 in collusion with the Revenue Authority mutated their names to the extent of 6 Bighas of land in their names on the basis of a fake registered sale deed bearing No. 2556/81 wherein Mohiran Nessa had been shown to be the executant.

4. It is the case of the plaintiff/respondent that her mother never executed the said sale deed No. 2556/81. It is also pleaded that the said principal defendants No. 1 & 2 tried to dispossess the plaintiff/respondent following which a proceeding u/s 145/146 of the Cr.P.C had to be initiated against the said principal defendants No. 1 & 2. However in the said proceeding, the possession was declared in favour of the said defendants No. 1 & 2 and on the basis of that order the plaintiff/respondent was dispossessed by force and they are occupying the suit land described in Schedule ‘Ka’ illegally. The sale deed is a fraudulent one and the defendants including the principal defendants No. 1 & 2 are the trespassers in respect of Schedule Ka land. Accordingly, the plaintiff/respondent sought for the reliefs of declaration of her right, title and interest and possession in respect of Ka Schedule land and the possession on the ‘Ga’ Schedule land, and for declaration that the sale deed covering land described in Schedule Ka is a fake, fraudulent one and injunction restraining the defendants.

5. The defendants No. 1 & 2 contested the suit filing their joint written statement and on the other hand, the present appellants No. 1 & 2 (who are defendants No. 2 (a) and 6) filed separate written statement. However none of the defendants preferred any counter claim against the claim of the plaintiff/respondent. The defence taken by the defendants including the present appellants are that Mohiran Nessa is not the owner of the said land. The appellants/defendants are also owners of the suit land and they have been enjoying their respective shares by constructing houses thereon. Mohiran Nessa during her lifetime sold 1 Bigha 2 Katha 10 Lechas of land to the defendants No