Mir Alfaz Ali, J.

1. This second appeal is by the defendant, against the concurrent finding of the First Appellate Court in Title Appeal, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff was dismissed.

2. Brief facts leading to the present second appeal were that the respondent as plaintiff filed Title Suit No. 73/1999 for declaration of right, title and recovery of khas possession. The case of the plaintiff was that the suit land originally belong to one Jafar Ali and plaintiff purchased the suit land from said Jafar Ali on 02.04.1994 by registered sale deed No. 210/94 and got mutation thereover. The defendant having their land adjacent to the land of the plaintiff, tried to encroach upon the suit land, where upon the plaintiff instituted a criminal proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C. and the criminal court declared possession of the plaintiff. When the plaintiff had been possessing the suit land peacefully, the defendants dispossessed the plaintiff from the suit land forcibly on 10.01.1999 and hence the plaintiffs filed the suit.

3. The pleaded case of the defendant was that the suit land was purchased by Jafar Ali in an auction sale in auction sale case No. 74/67-68. Said Jafar Ali sold the land to one Roshan Ali by sale deed No. 1576/1969 and Roshan Ali in turn sold the suit land to Mustt Dudhjan Nessa, the mother of the defendants No. 3, 4 & 5. It was further pleaded in the joint written statement by all the defendants that the defendants No. 1, 2 & 6 did not have any right, title and interest over the suit land and only the defendants No. 3, 4 & 5 claimed right, title and interest over the suit land as legal heirs of Dudhjan Begum.

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

(i) Whether there is any cause of action?

(ii) Whether the plaintiff has right, title and interest over the suit land?

(iii) Whether the plaintiff purchased the suit land from the original pattadar i.e. from the auction purchaser Md. Jafar Ali by executing registered sale deed?

(iv) Whether the plaintiff possessed the suit land continuously from the date of purchase?

(v) Whether the plaintiff was dispossessed from the suit land on 10.1.98 by the defendant?

(vi) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of khas possession?

(vii) Whether the possession of the suit land was declared in favour of plaintiff under a proceeding of 145 Cr.P.C. by the Ld. Executive Magistrate?

(viii) To what relief or relief's if any the plaintiff is entitled for?

(ix) Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary party?

(x) Whether the land purchased by the Musstt. Dudhjan Nessa from Roshan Ali Mandal vide Regd. Sale deed No. 1130/71 dated 28.12.71 is same and identical with the suit land purchased by the plaintiff from Jafar Ali on 02.04.94 vide regd. Sale deed No. 210/94?

(xi) Whether the defendants go right, title and interest upon the suit land on the strength of sale deed No. 1130/71?

5. Both the parties adduced evidence and the learned Munsiff after hearing the parties dismissed the suit with cost. Aggrieved, the plaintiff preferred an appeal and the learned Civil Judge, by the impugned judgment and decree dismissed the appeal as well as the suit of the plaintiff.

6. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the first appellate court, the plaintiff preferred the instant second appeal, which was admitted to be heard on the following substantial questions of law.

"(i) Whether the learned court below failed to differentiate the suit land with that of the scheduled land of the registered sale deed No. 1130/71 dated 28.12.71 which contains land measuring 1B, 3K, 15Ls out of 5 bighas of land while the DWs failed to identify the boundaries of the land and wrongly held that the suit land measuring 1B, 3K, 19Ls is the same and identical with Ext. K?

(ii) Whether the learned court below failed to appreciate the evidence available on records while the respondent/defendant has admitted in their written statement that Jafar Ali purchased the suit l