Heard Mr. T.J. Mahanta, the learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Ms. A. Saikia, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. A.R. Sikdar, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent.

2. This second appeal under Section 100 CPC is directed against the first appellate judgment and decree dated 18.08.2010, passed by the learned Civil Judge No.2, Kamrup, Guwahati, in Title Appeal No. 18/2008, by which the judgment and decree dated 22.04.2008, passed in the original suit i.e. Title Suit No. 712/2006 (old TS 284/2000) by the learned Munsiff No.1, Kamrup, Guwahati, was upheld.

3. This appeal was admitted by order dated 03.03.2014 on the following substantial questions of law:-

1. Whether the suit is barred by limitation?

2. Whether issuance of a new patta in favour of one co-sharer on the basis of actual physical possession and to the exclusion of other legal heirs of the original pattadar of un-partitioned temporarily settled estate can confer exclusive title to the new pattadar?

3. Whether right of heritability and transferability of a temporarily settled estate is confined to the period of the lease mentioned in the patta?

4. The appellants are the plaintiffs in Title Suit No. 712/2006 (old TS 284/2000). There were 14 plaintiffs and 5 defendants in the suit. At the outset is must be stated here that some names including that of Umes Ali (predecessor-in-interest of the parties) as well as other parties like Aiyesha Begum, Gubnara Begum, are found to have been spelt differently in some places in the plaint, written statement and judgment by the learned courts below. Hence, to avoid any confusion, the said names are spelt as Umes Ali, Aiyesha Begum and Gubnara Begum herein.

5. The case projected in the plaint is as follows:-

(a) That Late Umes Ali was the full and absolute owner of a plot of land measuring about 39 bigha-3 katha-10 lecha (bigha, katha and lecha is hereinafter referred to as “B” “K” “L” in short), covered by Dag Nos. 90, 110, 121, 382, 126, 128/365, 132/166, and 134 of K.P. Patta No. 5 of Village-Bagharbari, Mouza-Beltola, in the district of Kamrup, which is described in Schedule-A of the plaint, and 2K-14L, covered by Dag No. 125 of K.P. Patta No. 38 of Village-Bagharbari, Mouza-Beltola, in the district of Kamrup, which is described in Schedule-C of the plaint.

(b) It was projected that Late Umes Ali, the original landowner had died in the year 1969 leaving behind (i) Kamal Pasha, son (defendant No.1), (ii) Aiyesha Begum, daughter (predecessor in interest of plaintiffs No. 9 to 13), (iii) Musstt. Rukia Begum, daughter (defendant No.2), (iv) Musstt. Gulsanara Begum, daughter (defendant No.3), (v) Musstt. Marina Begum, daughter (predecessor in interest of plaintiffs No. 1 to 8), (vi) Musstt. Rejia Begum, daughter (plaintiff No.14), (vii) Musstt. Gubnara Begum, daughter (defendant No.4), and (viii) Musstt. Nurjahan Begum, daughter (defendant No.5).

(c) After the death of Md. Umes Ali, the properties left behind had devolved on his heirs as per Mohammedan law of inheritance. It was projected that defendant No.5 being his wife was entitled to 4B-4K-16L in Schedule-A land and 61/2L in Schedule-C land. The defendant No.1 being the only son was entitled to 17B-1K-16L land in Schedule-A and 1.4L in Schedule-C land. The daughters were entitled to the remaining 17B-1K-16L land in Schedule-A and 1.4L land in Schedule-C.

(d) It was projected that after the death of Md. Umes Ali, the land was not partitioned and divided amongst his heirs and legal representatives. However, the daughters were given 1B land each, except defendant No.2, who along with her husband Abdul Aziz were given 6B-4K-13L out of land described in Schedule-A. It was projected that each of the daughters of Late Umes Ali were entitled to 2B-4K-8L in Schedule-A land.

(e) It was also projected that taking advantage of mutation of the land in his favour, the defendant No.1 sold some land in Schedule-A to different persons. The plaintiffs had cl