JUDGMENT :

Sanjay Kumar Medhi, J.

1. The powers conferred by Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure have been sought to be invoked by preferring the present appeal whereby the appellants have put to challenge a judgment and decree dated 8.4.2009, passed in Title Appeal No. 14/2006 by the Civil Judge No. 1, Cachar. The First Appellate Court had allowed the appeal by reversing the judgment dated 10.03.2006 and decree dated 17.03.2006, passed by the Munsiff No. 2, Silchar in Title Suit No. 22/1996. The defendants are the appellants in the instant appeal.

2. Before proceeding in the matter, it would be convenient to narrate a brief background of the facts of the case.

3. The plaintiffs/respondents had instituted the present suit for declaration of right, title and interest for confirmation of possession and for cancellation of Registered Document No. 568 to 571 executed by Khairunecha as illegal. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the suit land was originally settled with Late Yusuf Mian. On his death, the only living legal heir, Amzad Ali, who is the grandson of Yusuf Mia, had become the owner. The suit land comprised of 10 Bigha 3 Kathas and 12 Chetak.

4. During the life time of Amzad Ali, he had executed a registered Sale Deed in the year 1948 and sold land measuring 2 Bighas 8 Kathas and 8 Chhataks in favour of his wife Rahima Bibi. On the death of Amzad Ali, he left behind his wife Rahima Bibi and only daughter Khairunecha. He also has two uncles, namely, Samsul Hoque and Jarafat Ali. The plaintiffs further projected that Khairunecha being issueless and a widow for a long time had lost her senses and the sale made by the aforesaid Khairunecha vide Registered Document No. 560 to 571 to the principal defendants was the subject matter of challenge and the suit was filed with the following relief:-

"In the circumstances stated above the plaintiffs pray decree against the principal defendants.

(a) for declaration of plaintiff's right, title and interest over the suit 1st schedule of land and possession thereof be confirmed,

(b) for declaration that the Registered documents Nos. 568 to 571 in the name of principal defendants shown to be executed by Khairunecha Bibi is illegal, inoperative and liable to be set aside.

(c) for permanent injunction restraining the principal defendants from entering into the suit land and interfering with the, possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land and house standing thereof.

(d) for awarding full cost of the suit,

(e) for such other and/or further relief/reliefs as may be deem fit and proper."

5. The defendants had contested the case and filed their written statements. In the said written statements, the sale made by Khairunecha has been categorically defended by stating that the vendor has absolute right, title and interest over the suit land which was duly transferred upon the defendants on such purchase. In the written statement, it has been pleaded that the inability of the vendor Khairunecha to execute such deed has not been pleaded at all and only a vague statement regarding the mental health of Khairunecha has been made in the plaint.

6. The learned Trial Court after hearing had framed the following issues:-

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

2. Whether the suit is maintainable?

3. Whether the suit is barred by limitation?

4. Whether the suit is under-valued and proper Court fee have been paid?

5. Whether the suit patta is an ejmali patta?

6. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to right title and interest over the Suit land?

7. Whether the plaintiffs are possessing the suit land?

8. Whether the registered documents being Nos. 568 to 571 are illegal, inoperative and liable to be set aside?

9. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to decree as prayed for?

10. To what relief the Plaintiffs are entitled to?"

7. For a proper adjudication of the matter, the learned Court below examined three numbers of plaintiff witnesses alongwith eleven numbers of documents whereas the defendants had exami