1. Heard Mr. RJ Bordoloi, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr. PK Kalita, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Sheeladitya, learned Advocate, appearing for the respondents.

2. The present plaintiffs/appellants filed Title Suit No. 21/2007 in the court of learned Civil Judge No. 2, Kamrup at Guwahati seeking for the following reliefs:-

That a decree may kindly be passed:

(a) declaring that the plaintiffs jointly have right title and interest and constructive possession over the suit land described in schedule A, B, C below of the extend of 50% along with the defendants by right of inheritance.

(b) declaring that no title has flown to the defendant or their predecessors vide fraudulent, forged and illegal partition deed, which is an unregistered one.

(bb) declaring that the decision of the Assam Board of Revenue as to title of the parties over the suit land vide Judgment & order dated 14.12.2005 in 68 RA(K) 2000 is not tenable, lawful and binding on the parties.

(c) by temporary and permanent injunction restraining the defendants from transferring the suit land and any part thereof in any way or from modifying the character and nature thereof by raising construction otherwise.

(d) for any of the relief to which the plaintiff may be found to be entitled.

(e) For costs of the suit.

3. Both the parties to the suit are from lineage of one Rohini Deka who had a substantive area of land in his name. He died leaving behind two sons, namely, Nagen and Tarun. The plaintiffs/ appellants are the legal heirs of Tarun Deka and the defendants are the legal heirs of Nagen Deka. The cause of action for the suit arose when the plaintiffs/ appellants could come to know that the defendants/ respondents mutated their names after the death of Tarun as his legal heirs. It was challenged before the Revenue court that the defendants/ respondents are not the legal heirs of Tarun. Rather, the plaintiffs/ appellants are the legal heirs of Tarun Deka and as such, the names of the defendants/ respondents are liable to be cancelled as the legal heirs of Tarun and the names of the plaintiffs/ appellants are to be recorded as the legal heirs of Tarun who inherited his share. The said mutation proceeding led to a dispute between the parties to the suit as a result of which the suit was filed with the reliefs stated hereinabove.

4. The defendants/ respondents denied almost all the contention made in the plaint and projected that one Balaram Deka was the predecessor-in-interest of Rohini Deka, Kamala Kanti Deka, Padma Kanti Deka and Ananda Deka. The four sons of Balaram Deka during the lifetime of their father acquired land in the Demoria Mouza in the district of Kamrup and established farmhouse and started cultivating over the said acquired land. The said four brothers decided to partition their landed property in the district of Morigaon and Demoria Mouza in the district of Kamrup and on the basis of the said decision elder brother Rohini Deka was settled with the total land in the district of Morigaon and the rest of the brothers accordingly relinquished their rights in favour of Rohini Deka. However, the name of Rohini Deka remained uncancelled in patta no. 63 of village Uttar Demoria in Demoria Mouza in the district of Kamrup. Two of his sons, Nagen and Tarun during the lifetime of Rohini Deka started living separately as two different families over the vast landed properties of Rohini Deka. After the death of Rohini Deka, the said Nagen and Tarun decided to divide their paternal properties by calling village ‘Mel’ and on the basis of the said arrangement the father of the defendants/ respondents relinquished his right over the properties settled with his brother Tarun Deka. Though, Tarun Deka also consented to relinquish the settled portion in favour of Nagen but due to negligence the name of Tarun Deka remained in the land records along with Nagen Deka. It is further pleaded that as per the arrangement the entire land of their grandfather