1. Heard Mr. K.K. Mahanta, the learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner, assisted by Mr. B. Deka, the learned Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. D. Baruah, the learned Advocate for the respondents.

2. By this revision under Section 115 CPC, the petitioner has assailed the judgment and decree dated 30.06.2014, passed by the learned Munsiff No.2, Kamrup (Metropolitan), Guwahati in T.S. No. 126/2007, which was a suit filed under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.

3. The case as projected in the suit is that the previous suit, numbered as TS No. 126/2007 filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the Court of the learned Munsiff No.2, Kamrup (M), Guwahati. It was claimed that the petitioner was in possession of land measuring 1K-6L, covered by Dag No. 213, PP No. 33 of Village No.1, Mathgharia, Mouza- Beltola in the district of Kamrup (M), as morefully described in Schedule-A of the plaint. The said land was originally purchased by his father by Sale Deed No. 5778 dated 14.05.1975 by one Kartik Rai, the occupancy tenant under original owner, namely, Panna Devi Agarwalla, whose whereabouts is not known. The said land was left to him by his father, who had died in the year 1977. The said land formed a part of total land measuring 1B-2K-16L of same Dag and Patta, which was declared in his favour by order dated 29.10.2001 in Case No. 180m/1990 under Section 145 Cr.P.C., which was filed after the Assam State Housing Board tried to dispossess the petitioner from the suit land on 01.04.1990. Thereafter, the said plot was divided into three portions and the suit land is one of these three plots. It was projected that on 24.10.2006, the respondents had made attempt to construct a brick wall, but because of the help from police the petitioner could not be dispossessed, but on 12.12.2006, the respondents had trespassed into the suit land by constructing 3 feet high brick wall in the eastern boundary of the suit land despite protest by the petitioners and on 19th and 20th February, 2007 the respondent had also installed a gate in the middle of the wall without any legal right or authority.

4. The respondents had contested the suit by filing their joint written statement, denying all the averments made in the plaint. It was stated that that the suit was barred by limitation and bad for non-joinder of necessary parties, claiming that the predecessor of the respondents had purchased the said plot of land from the Assam State Housing Board and, as such, the Assam State Housing Board was a necessary party and that the respondents had been enjoying physical possession of the land measuring 1K-5L (not 1K-6L) since the year 1992 and that the boundary wall was constructed 12 years back. It was projected that the Assam State Housing Board had purchased about 53 bigha land and the said land was divided into small plots for various categories and one of such plot was handed over to Amar Hazarika, the predecessor of the respondents (who died on 11.05.2006) as HIG No. 9 category plot by accepting first installment paid on 17.08.1992 and Sale Deed No. 14720 dated 11.08.2005 was registered on payment of the sale consideration of Rs.1,02,768/- in installments. It was also claimed that when the predecessor of the respondents had engaged one contractor, namely, Biren Kumar Das to develop the land, the petitioner had instituted Case No. 609M/2005 which was dropped by order dated 31.08.2006, directing the parties to approach civil court. Hence, it was prayed that the suit was liable to be dismissed.

5. The learned trial Court had framed the following issues for trial:-

1. Whether there was any cause of action for filing this suit?

2. Whether the suit is barred by limitation?

3. Whether the suit is bad for non- joinder and mis-joinder of parties?

4. Whether the plaintiff was dispossessed from the suit land on 12.12.06?

5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get a decree as prayed for?

6. In support of his claim, the petitioner had examined two w