1. This second appeal by the defendant is filed against the judgment and decree dated 12.03.2014 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Hailakandi in Title Appeal No. 2/2013, whereby learned Civil Judge reversed the judgment and decree dated 26.11.2012 passed by the learned Munsiff, Hailakandi in Title Suit No. 85/2007 and decreed the suit of the plaintiff.

2. The plaintiff filed Title Suit No. 85/2007 for declaration of right, title and interest, confirmation of possession and other consequential reliefs.

3. The case of the plaintiffs was that the suit land measuring 1 bigha, 4 katha and 4 chatak covered by Patta No. 177 and Dag No. 444 was purchased by Insan Ali from Mahmud Ali and Koramat Ali, predecessors of the plaintiffs and principal defendant No. 1, respectively. After purchasing the suit land, said Insan Ali allowed Mahmud Ali to occupy the land by executing a ‘Korarnama’ and subsequently by a registered sale deed, Insan Ali sold the suit land to Mahmud Ali, predecessor of the plaintiffs and Mahmud Ali had been possessing the suit land as owner. After the death of Mahmud Ali, the plaintiffs as legal heir, inherited the suit property and have been possessing the same without any interference from any quarter. The principal defendant No. 1 instituted a criminal proceeding under Section 145 & 146 CrPC by making false allegations and obtained an order of attachment of the suit land. Although the Executive Magistrate passed the order of attachment, the land was not physically attached and as such, the plaintiffs continued to possess the suit land. On the strength of the order passed by the Executive Magistrate, the defendant No.1 tried to occupy the suit land and hence, the plaintiffs filed the suit praying for the reliefs as indicated above.

4. The suit was contested only by the principal defendant No. 1. The pleaded case of the principal defendant was that Koramat Ali, being father –in-law of the main defendant, purchased the suit land from Mahmud Ali Choudhury by registered sale deed in the year 1956 and was in possession thereof. After the death of Koramat Ali, his son, the husband of the defendant No. 1 inherited the suit land and after the death of her husband, the defendant No. 1 inherited the suit land and has been in possession of the same peacefully. On 30.06.2004, the plaintiffs tried to trespass into the suit land forcibly and as such, the defendant No. 1 instituted a criminal proceeding under Section 145 & 146 CrPC. In the said proceeding under Section 145/146 CrPC, the suit land was attached and eventually possession of the defendant No. 1 was declared by the Executive Magistrate. The plaintiffs, though filed a revision petition before the learned Sessions Judge against the order of the Executive Magistrate, the same was dismissed.

5. On the basis of the above pleadings of the parties, learned Munsiff framed the following issues:

(1) Is there any cause of action for the suit?

(2) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to get declaration that the suit land was purchased and possessed land of their father?

(3) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to get declaration for possession over the suit land?

(4) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to get declaration that principal defendant has no title, possession over the suit land?

(5) Whether the order dated 07.08.2006 and proforma defendant No. 7 is illegal, collusive and is liable to be cancelled?

(6) To what relief, the plaintiffs are entitled?

6. Both the parties adduced evidence, oral as well as documentary and the learned Munsiff, after hearing the parties dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs.

7. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiffs preferred first appeal before the learned Civil Judge. Learned Civil Judge, by the impugned judgment and decree allowed the appeal and decreed the suit of the plaintiffs.

8. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the first appellate court, the defendants preferred the instant appeal, which was admitted to be heard on the following substantial q