JUDGMENT :

Prasanta Kumar Deka, J.

1. Heard Mr. K.K. Mahanta, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. B. Deka, the learned counsel for the appellants and Ms. T. Goswami, the learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The present respondents as the plaintiffs filed Title Suit No. 12/1995 in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) Lakhimpur at North Lakhimpur against the present defendants/appellants. The suit land measuring 2 Bighas 2 Kathas 3 Lechas covered by Dag No. 8 of periodic patta No. 14 of Nijlaluk Map under Laluk Mouza in the district of Lakhimpur stands in the name of plaintiff/respondent No. 1 who possessed alongwith other plaintiffs/respondents from the days of their forefathers. On 03.07.1990 and 04.07.1990, the defendants/appellants dispossessed the plaintiffs/respondents and ploughed over the suit land. A proceeding under Section 144 Cr.P.C. was initiated and the suit land was attached by the Executive Magistrate, Lakhimpur. Though Title Suit No. 25/1991 was filed in the court of learned Civil Judge, (Junior Division) Lakhimpur at North Lakhimpur but on objection raised by the defendants/appellants on the ground of pecuniary jurisdiction of the court, the plaint was returned to the plaintiffs/respondents on 20.03.1995. Thereafter, Title Suit No. 12/1995 for declaration of right, title and interest recovery of khas possession and permanent injunction was filed in the appropriate court.

3. The defendants/appellants filed joint written statement and took the defence that the suit land is situated in the Tribal Belt and the parties to the suit being non-tribal as such the plaintiffs/respondents are not entitled to any relief from the Civil Court. The suit is barred by limitation and also barred under Section 53(A) of TP Act. The conversion of the suit land to periodic patta is a fraudulent one. Denying the plea of dispossession of the plaintiffs/respondents it is the pleaded case that the mother of the plaintiffs/respondents after death of her husband sold the suit land to the defendants/appellants by executing a registered deed bearing No. 701/1970 on 17.06.1970 at a valuable consideration whereafter possession was delivered to the defendants/appellants. Alternatively, they took the plea that the defendants/appellants are possessing the suit land in open and peaceful manner since the transfer on 17.06.1970.

4. The trial court framed the following issues:-

"1. Whether there is cause of action for the suit?

2. Whether the suit land is under the Tribal Belt and the Civil Court has jurisdiction to try this suit?

3. Whether the suit land was sold to the defendants by the plaintiffs by a registered Sale Deed No. 701/70 dt. 17.6.70 and delivered possession over the suit land to the defendants?

4. Whether the suit is barred u/s. 53(A) of the T.P. Act?

5. Whether the defendants are in peaceful possession over the suit land from 17.6.70?

6. Whether the suit is barred by limitation?

7. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of party?

8. To what relief the plaintiff is entitled?"

5. The plaintiffs/respondents adduced evidence of 5(five) witnesses and the defendants/appellants adduced 3(three) witnesses. The trial court decreed the suit.

6. The trial court relied the decision of Munindra Ch. Dey vs. Kamal Ch. Bora, reported in 1977 A.L.R. 75 and held that Section 167 of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation (hereinafter referred to as 'the Regulation') under Chapter-X is not an absolute bar but is a limited restriction imposed in connection with the matters covered by the Chapter-X. It does not oust the jurisdiction of the Civil Court in respect of matter not covered by Chapter-X nor to decide an issue as to whether the matter is covered by the said Chapter-X. Referring further decisions of the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court, the trial court also considered that Chapter-X does not take away the right of the patta holders for eviction of a person in unauthorised occupation of his patta land through the Civil Court. However, if the Dep