JUDGMENT :

Prasanta Kumar Deka, J.

1. Heard Mr. P.K. Roy the learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. M.K. Choudhury, the learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. A. Barkataki the learned counsel for the sole respondent.

2. The judgment and decree dated 10.3.2017 and 16.3.2017 respectively passed by the learned Civil Judge, Tinsukia in T.A. No. 10/2016 is put under challenge dismissing the first appeal of the appellant and allowing the cross objection of the defendant respondent.

3. The plaintiff appellant, M/s. Kamakhya Coal Pvt. Ltd. a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 represented by its Director filed T.S. No. 44 of 2008 in the court of learned Munsiff at Tinsukia against the sole defendant-respondent seeking for declaration of its right, title and interest, recovery of possession and injunction in respect of the suit land measuring 20 bighas.

4. The plaintiff appellant company purchased the suit land vide registered sale deed No. 240/1985 from one Jagannath Paul and delivered with the possession thereof which continued till dispossessed by the defendant respondent. The name of the plaintiff appellant was mutated in respect of the suit land vide order dated 30.5.1985 of the concerned Circle Officer. In the month of July 2004 the representatives of the plaintiff appellant came to learn that the defendant respondent mutated his name over the suit land as per the order of the Circle Officer, Tinsukia Revenue Circle in place of the plaintiff appellant. A separate patta was also issued in favour of the defendant respondent on revenue partition of the suit land. The representatives of plaintiff appellant were obstructed by the defendant respondent in the month of August 2004 when the said representatives visited the suit land.

5. The plaintiff appellant filed an appeal before the Addl. Deputy Commissioner, Tinsukia challenging an order dated 2.1.1997 passed by the said Addl. Deputy Commissioner affirming the mutation of the defendant respondent. Though the same was registered as Revenue Appeal No. 6/2004 but the Addl. Deputy Commissioner refused to interfere and dropped the same. R.A. (Tin) No. 23/2005 was filed before the Hon'ble Assam Board of Revenue challenging the order dated 15.9.2004 vide which Revenue Appeal No. 6/2004 was dropped. R.A. (Tin) No. 23/2005 was dismissed vide judgment dated 19.12.2007 on the ground that the order dated 2.1.1997 of the Addl. Deputy Commissioner, Tinsukia was not challenged. However the Hon'ble Board gave the liberty to the plaintiff-appellant to file civil suit. A review petition was filed against the order of dismissal in RA (Tin) No. 23/2005 which was allowed remanding the matter for fresh disposal by the Deputy Commissioner, Tinsukia. Pleading further that the defendant respondent taking the advantage of absence of the representatives of the plaintiff company unauthorisedly trespassed and dispossessed the plaintiff appellant from the suit land and illegally mutated his name. Accordingly, the suit was filed for the reliefs stated hereinabove.

6. The defendant respondent filed his written statement pleading that the suit was not maintainable both under the facts and law. The plaintiff appellant had no right to sue as the name of plaintiff company was struck off from the register of Registrar of Companies (ROC), Shillong. No company existed under the name and style, "Kamakhya Coal Pvt. Ltd." as such the existence of the director of the said company does not arise. It was specifically pleaded that the plaintiff appellant had no right, title and interest over the suit land, denied execution of the sale deed by Jagannath Paul and delivery of possession of the suit land.

7. The defendant respondent pleaded that he had been in uninterrupted possession of the suit land continuously from 1990 initially by raising tea nursery and in the year 1994 by constructing godown on the eastern part over the suit land. After uprooting the tea bushes he dug a pond thereon. In the year 1999/2000 he const