MIR ALFAZ ALI, J.

1. This second appeal by the defendant, is directed against the judgment and decree dated 08.05.2009 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Nagaon in Title Appeal No. 16/2007 reversing the judgment and decree of the learned Munsiff, Hojai, Sankardev Nagar in Title Suit No. 83/1993.

2. Bhakta Goala (since deceased), father of the respondents, as plaintiff, filed the Title Suit No. 83/1993 alleging that one Sri. Masad Goala, proforma defendant No. 20(ka) was the owner of the suit land. Said Masad Goala by registered Sale Deed No. 3901 dated 22.03.1975 sold the suit land in favour of the plaintiff and delivered position. While the plaintiff was in possession of the suit land, the defendants tried to disposses the plaintiff and thereby clouded the right, title and interest of the plaintiff over the suit land. Hence, the plaintiff filed the suit for declaration of right, title and interest over the suit land and confirmation of possession and/or recovery of possession. During pendency of the suit, the original plaintiff died and his legal representatives were substituted.

3. The pleaded case of the main defendants was that land measuring 60B 2K 3L along with the suit land, originally belonged to Ananda Gaur, Kartik Gaur and Masad Goala. Kartik Gour and Ananda Gour, who transferred their share of the land being 12 bigha, 2 katha 3 lecha in favour of Late Dhoda Goala at a cost of Rs. 400/- and left the place and the defendants have been possessing the suit land for more than 12 years without any intervention. The defendants also denied the execution of Sale Deed by Masad Goala, the original owner of the land in favour of the plaintiff and stated that such deed was fraudulent. Masad Goala who was arrayed as defendant No. 20(ka) also filed a separate written statement denying execution of the Sale Deed No. 3900 in favour of the plaintiff. On the basis of the above pleadings, learned Munsiff framed the following issues:

(1) Whether there is any cause of action?

(2) Whether the suit is maintainable in the present form?

(3) Whether the suit is barred by the principles of estoppels and acquiescence?

(4) Whether the suit is barred by the law of limitation?

(5) Whether the suit is barred by adverse possession?

(6) Whether Masad Goala executed a registered Deed of sale dated 20/3/75 in favour of the plaintiff in respect of land described in schedule ‘Ka’ to the plaint and delivered possession?

(7) Whether the plaintiff has title and possession over the suit land?

(8) What relief, if any is the plaintiff entitled to?

4. Both the parties adduced evidence and after hearing both the sides, learned Munsiff dismissed the suit. The plaintiff preferred an appeal before the learned Civil Judge and the learned Civil Judge by the impugned judgment and decree allowed the appeal reversing the judgment of the learned Munsiff and decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff/respondents. Challenging the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge, the defendant/appellants have preferred the instant second appeal.

5. At the time of admitting the appeal, the following substantial questions of law were framed for hearing.

1. Whether on the basis of the alleged executed Sale Deed the plaintiff acquired right, title and interest over the suit land?

2. Whether in the absence of any evidence of attesting witness, the execution of the Sale stood duly proved?

3. Whether the transaction of the sale without delivering of possession was complete?

6. I have heard Mr. N. Deka, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Ms. P. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel for the respondents and considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for both the sides.

7. Mr. N. Deka, learned counsel for the appellants basically urged one point before this Court, that the Sale Deed allegedly executed by Masad Goala, on the basis of which, the plaintiffs claimed their title was denied by the vendor Masad Goala and the plaintiffs failed to prove the execution of the Sa