JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. K. Tari learned counsel for the appellant and Ms. T. Jini learned counsel for the respondent no.1. Respondents No.2. Respondent No.3 have not entered any appearance though notice served upon them was completed.

2. This is a Regular First Appeal directed against the Judgment and decree dated 28.01.2019 passed by the learned Civil Judge (senior Division), West Siang District, Aalo in Title Suit No. 03 of 2016.

3. Facts of the case in a nutshell is that the plaintiff/appellant herein filed a Title Suit No. 03/2016 against the defendants/respondents, for declaration of title, rights and interest over the suit land measuring 5565 Square feet (8 meter in breadth and 100 meter in length) and another adjoining land measuring 4320 square feet (80 feet in breadth and 54 feet in length) located at market area, Likabali. The Respondents/defendants have filed their respective written statements in defense of the case. On the basis of the rival pleadings of the parties, the learned court of Court framed as many as 6 (six) issues as follows :

1. Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form and context?

2. Whether the plaintiff has acquired the landed property measuring about 5565 square feet and 4320 square feet of land situated at Likabali, described in the schedule since 1960 and was peaceful possession till 2013?

3. Whether the plaintiff has constructed any structure (grocery Shop) over their suit land and was in possession of the same till the year 2013?

4. Whether the plaintiff has got right, title, interest and ownership over the suit land?

5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree as prayed for?

6. To what other relief or reliefs the parties are entitled for.

4. That, after framing of issues the Appellant/Plaintiff adduced as many as 9 (nine) witnesses and 20 (twenty documents were Exhibited and the defendant/respondent No.1 adduced as many as 4 (four) witnesses, Thereafter, upon hearing the counsel for the parties concerned, the learned trial court below has, by the impugned Judgment and Decree dated 28.01.2019, partly decreed in favour of appellant/plaintiff declaring inter alia that appellant/plaintiff is the actual owner in respect of land measuring 4320 square feet and partly decreed against the appellant/plaintiff in respect of land measuring 5565 square feet at Likabali market area, thereby declaring that the appellant/plaintiff had never acquired or possessed the land which is the Lipu Link road. Hence, on being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said Judgment and the partly decreed dated 28.01.2016, the appellant have filed the present appeal.

5. Mr. K. Tari learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned trial court below has failed to properly appreciate the evidence on record in not finding that the preponderance of evidence and probability was in favour of the Appellant/Plaintiff and erroneously decided the Issue No.2, by holding that the plaintiff had never acquired or possessed the land measuring 5565 sq feet (8 meter by 212 feet) which is the Lipu Link Road. Whereas evidences of the appellant/plaintiff proved that the plaintiff has acquired and possessed said land since 1960. The affidavit dated 22.09.1992, by the plaintiff/appellant, declared himself as owner and possessor of a plot of land,he possessed the land measuring 5565 square feet at Likabali market area since 1960 anda road was being constructed by the appellant/plaintiff for his personal convenience, however, the learned court below had declared/decreed that said suit land was Lipu Link road in absence of any documentary evidence.That, the learned court below ought to have drawn a presumption of title in favour of the appellant/plaintiff, who are admittedly-in possession of the said disputed land, on the basis of the doctrines of possession follows title as contemplated under section 110 of the Evidence Act.

6. The learned counsel for the plaintiff appellant further submits that the learned court below had failed to appreci