Prasanta Kumar Deka, J.

Heard Mr. G.N. Sahewalla learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. B. Sarma, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr. S.P. Choudhury learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

2. The present appellants as the plaintiffs preferred Title Suit No. 22/2002 in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Silchar against the present defendants respondents for declaration of right, title and interest, declaration that the defendants respondents are licensee under them and for recovery of khas possession over the suit land measuring 1 bigha 1 katha 9 chataks.

3. It is the case of the plaintiffs appellants that Martin Anthony and Adam Anthony were the owners with respect to the land measuring 28 bighas 7 kathas 12 chataks under second R.S.Patta No. 72 under various Dag numbers. Dag No. 164 consisted of land measuring 1 bigha 1 katha 9 chataks of land and the predecessor-in-interest of the defendants respondents one Kotoi Sheikh, was the licensee under the said owners who possesed the land by constructing thatched house. The brother of Kotoi Sheikh also resided with him and illegally manufactured a draft khatian for the said land which was subsequently cancelled. Botoi Sheikh the brother of said Kotoi Sheikh left the suit premises in the year of 1974 after cancellation of the khatian. On the death of Kotoi Sheikh, his heirs, the present defendants respondents maintained the possession over the suit land covered by dag No. 164 as licensee. Vide registered sale deed No. 1359 dated 10.11.1989(Ext.2), Adam Anthony sold land measuring 7 kathas 2 chataks to the plaintiffs appellants leaving plaintiff appellant No. 1 out of the total land covered by dag No. 164. After sale the defendants respondent took permission from the plaintiffs appellants for allowing them to possess the land with assurance that they would vacate the same as and when demanded by the plaintiffs appellants. Later on plaintiff appellant No.1 who is the father of the plaintiffs appellants No. 2 to 4 purchased the rest of the land of dag No. 164 vide registered sale deed No. 770 dated 17.5.1993(Ext. 3). The defendants respondents took the necessary permission from the plaintiff respondent No. 1 to continue the possession as a licensee with the condition that they would vacate the land whenever the same is demanded by the plaintiffs appellants. The defendants respondents failed to comply with the demand of the plaintiffs appellants to vacate the said suit land and thereafter the present suit was filed with the relief mentioned hereinabove.

4. The defendants respondents filed their joint written statement They disputed themselves to be the licensee under the plaintiffs appellants. It was pleaded that the grandfather of the defendants respondents, Bhudai Sheikh took settlement of the entire suit land, both homestead and agriculture land from the presecessor-in-interest of Adam and Martin Anthony about 8/9 years back and constructed permanent structure in a portion thereof and living with his family members doing agricultural pursuits. The said grandfather also paid the rent for the said land to the owners regularly. But the owners did not issue any receipts. The defendants respondents, their predecessors-in-interest were agriculturist and acquired the status of occupancy tenants and they are entitled to their rights and protection under the Tenancy Act and hence they are not evictable under the law. They are the holders of the draft khatian. Accordingly they sought for dismissal of the suit.

5. Upon pleadings the learned trial court framed the following issues:

1. Is there any cause of action for this suit?

2. Is the suit maintainable?

3. Is the suit barred by the law of limitation?

4. Whether the suit has been properly valued and stamped?

5. Whether the suit is bad for defect of parties?

6. Whether the plaintiffs have right title and interest over the suit land?

7. Whether the defendants are licensees under the plaintiffs, in respect of th