JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Ms. R. Choudhury, learned counsel for the appellants. None has entered appearance on behalf of the respondents though from the office note it is seen that the Dasti service was taken for service of notice on the respondents and from the affidavit sworn by the appellants it appears that they refused to accept the notice and as such service was presumed to be completed on the respondents and the matter is taken up for hearing for its final disposal.

2. The present appellants are the defendants in Title Suit No. 5/2000 in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.) No. 1, Mangaldoi filed by the respondent-plaintiffs. It is the case of the plaintiff-respondents that on 20.1.1959 one Kanchu Sheikh, father of the plaintiff-respondents purchased the suit 1 and by registered deed No. 318 from one Rahman Mandol who was one of the pattadars which is described in Schedule B of the plaint. After the said purchase, Kanchu Sheikh got possession thereon. The father of the plaintiff-respondents and the father of the defendant-appellant Nos. 1 and 2 were brother in law (defend ants). When the father of the plaintiff-respondents suffered from ailment, he allowed Fazar Ali to cultivate the land on his behalf before his death and accordingly Fazar Ali cultivated the land for and on behalf of the father of the plaintiff-respondents and used to give proceeds of the land. Fazar Ali, the father of the defendant-appellant Nos. 1 and 2 died in the month of July 1997 and thereafter the plaintiff-respondents brought the land under their control and possession and constructed house thereon and paid the revenue for the land. On 31.3.1999 the defendant-appellants tried to dispossess the plaintiff-respondents from the suit land whereafter the plaintiff-respondents initiated M.R. Case No. 43/1999 under section 145/146, Cr.PC and the disputed land was attached. The defendant-appellants thereafter preferred a criminal revision against the order of attachment and the learned Sessions Judge, Darrang by his order dated 26.11.1999 set aside the order of attachment of the Executive Magistrate, Mangaldoi. The plaintiff-respondents are still in possession of the Schedule B land which is the suit land and during the 145, Cr. PC proceeding, the plaintiff-respondents got the copy of Jamabandi on 6.1.2000 and came to know that the old periodic patta number was converted to new periodic patta number and that the name of Fazar Ali, father of the defendant-appellant Nos. 1 and 2 was fraudulently mutated in respect of Schedule B suit land and as such the name of Fazar Ali which was mutated fraudulently and collusively is liable to be set aside. On 4.2.2000, the main defendant-appellants again threatened that the plaintiffs-respondents would be forcibly dispossessed from the suit land. The defendant-appellants had no right, title and interest over the suit land but owing to the mutation of name of Fazar Ali over the suit land, the right, title and interest of the plaintiff-respondents became clouded, therefore, they have filed the suit for declaration of their right, title and interest over the Schedule B land and for further declaration that the mutation of the name of Fazar Ali (father of the defendant-appellant Nos. 1, 2 and 3) over the Schedule B land is illegal, collusive and liable to be cancelled and for precept to the Collector, Darrang. It is pertinent to mention here that after filing of the written statement-cum-counter-claim by the defendant-appellants, the plaintiff-respondents amended the plaint by introducing that the registered sale deed No. 2504 dated 28.5.1962 purportedly executed by their father Kanchu Sheikh selling the suit land to one Keshab Chandra Sarkar and the subsequent registered sale deed No. 3542 dated 6.12.1993 executed by the said Keshab Chandra Sarkar in favour of Fazar Ali, the father of the defendant-appellants are forged and accordingly sought for relief for declaration of the said registered sale deeds as illegal, fraudul