Anima Hazarika, J.

1. Having lost in both the learned courts below the appellant herein, who was one of the defendants in the suit has assailed the judgment and decree passed on 30.07.2001 by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Div.) Morigaon in Title Appeal No. 3 of 2000 affirming the judgment and decree dated 08.12.1999 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) No. 1, Morigaon, in Title Suit No. 17/1988 in the instant regular Appeal invoking power under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code', in short). Heard Mr. B Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. Also heard Mr. N.K. Baruah, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. At the time of admission of the appeal the court had framed the following substantial questions of law:-

1. For the suit land as alleged by the plaintiff to have been given in dowry, a substantial question of law arises whether the claim of the plaintiff is maintainable in view of the bar provided under the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and the provisions of Section 17 and 49 of the Indian Registration Act, 1917?

2. For that the suit land having brought by the predecessor of the appellant vide registered deed No. 548 and 549 dated 06.04.1970 and having taken possession from then, a substantial question of law arises whether the claim of the plaintiff is barred by limitation, inasmuch as in 1988 without assailing the validity of the sale deed?

3. In order to answer the substantial question of law, as formulated, the relevant facts are summarized hereinbelow :

The respondent herein as plaintiff on the file of the learned Munsiff No. 1, Morigaon Sub-Division has brought the suit against the defendants seeking the following reliefs:-

(a) For declaration of right, title and interest over the suit land described in Schedule 'Ka' and for a decree of khas possession thereon,

(b) For permanent injunction against the defendants so that they cannot raise any obstruction in the peaceful possession of the suit land,

(c) For a decree in favour of the plaintiff if it is found that the suit land is under the possession of the plaintiff and to evict the defendants and for a decree of khas possession in favour of the plaintiff,

(d) Cost of the entire suit against the defendants, and

(e) For any other or further reliefs as the Court may seem fit and proper.

4. The reliefs that have been sought for in the suit rests on the following pleaded facts :-

Ananda Roy Gaonburah, the father-in-law of the plaintiff Ashini Kanta Das was the original owner of a plot of land measuring 7 Bighas 2 Kathas 19 Lechas covering annual patta No. 7 of Dag No. 130. In the last settlement operation Dag No. was changed into 140 and Patta No. into 127. The suit land is measuring 3 Bighas 3 Kathas 19 1/2 Lechas out of 7 Bighas 2 Kathas 19 Lechas situated at Khalani bill Kisam of Mouza Mayong. Smti. Prafulla Devi, the only daughter of the said Ananda Roy Gaonburah was given marriage to the plaintiff and the said plot of land was given to the plaintiff as dowry and accordingly mutated his name in the records of right. Ananda Roy Gaonburah died in the meantime. On the death of Ananda Roy Gaonburah the land was mutated in the name of his daughter Prafulla Devi. But thereafter half portion of the said land (7 Bighas 2 Kathas 19 Lechas) was given to Shyam Sundar, brother of Ananda Roy and accordingly, the names of the brother along with Prafulla Devi were mutated respectively. However, the annual patta was converted to periodic patta on 18.09.1974 and periodic pattas were issued in favour of Shri Shyam Sundar and the plaintiff and half of the land measuring 3 Bighas 3 Kathas 19 1/2 Lechas out of 7 Bighas 2 Kathas 19 Lechas belonged to the plaintiff since there was no issue of Prafulla Devi and the rest belongs to Shyam Sundar. But on 19.08.1988 the defendants entered forcefully into the suit land and tri