JUDGMENT :

MITALI THAKURIA, J.

1. Heard Mr. G.N. Sahewalla, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants/defendants. Also heard Mr. D. Mazumdar, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs.

2. This instant appeal is filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, challenging the judgment and decree dated 05.01.2006, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Tinsukia, in T.A. No. 04/1996, dismissing the appeal and upholding the judgment and decree dated 30.10.1995, passed by the learned Munsiff No. 1, Tinsukia, in T.S. No. 89/1993.

3. The case of the plaintiffs/defendants is that Late Somdutt Dahotia, the father of the original defendant Nos. 1 and 2 and Late Dashiram Dahotia were brothers. They, along with original defendant Nos. 14 and 15 were the original owners of the land measuring 21 Bighas, 14 Lessas under Dag No. 790, 830, 1268 and 1174/1265, covered by Periodic Patta No. 263 of Tinsukia Town, Mauza Tinsukia and accordingly, they were possessing the land by making amicable partitions and their names were also mutated in their respective shares.

4. On 03.04.1946, the original defendant Nos. 14 and 15 sold their shares out of the land measuring 20 Bighas 14 lessas in favour of original plaintiff-Azizul Haque (since deceased), original Plaintiff No. 2, original Plaintiff No. 3 and original plaintiff No. 4-Late Muktaraul Haque by executing registered sale deed.

5. Similarly, another land owner-Late Bhupen Dahotia also sold his share of land to Late Azizul Haque and Anwarul Haque by executing registered sale deed and also delivered the possession thereof. All the plaintiffs also got their names mutated over the purchased land. But, within the period between 06.05.1957 to 10.05.1957, the original defendant No. 1 filed a false complaint before the Officer-In-Charge, Tinsukia Police Station, alleging that the plaintiff were disturbing his peaceful possession. Accordingly, one proceeding was drawn up under Section 145 Cr.P.C. by the learned Additional District Magistrate and accordingly, the land was attached and the total land under the attachment was 24 Bighas 3 Kathas 14 Lessas where the entire land of the plaintiffs measuring 14 Bighas 3 Kathas 4 Lessas were also included. In the said proceeding, the learned Magistrate declared the possession in favour of the original defendant Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 including plaintiff-Lt. Azizul Haque. Then, Lt. Azizul Haque filed a revision petition before the learned Sessions Judge and after hearing the revision matter, the learned Sessions Judge referred the same to this Court for necessary order. Thereafter, this Court accepted the order passed by the learned Magistrate and thereby the right and title of the plaintiffs over the said land were clouded and hence, the plaintiffs, after immediate disposal of the criminal reference, filed the suit along with a petition for temporary injunction. The original plaintiffs claimed that they are the original owner of the suit land described in the schedule of the plaint and are also in physical possession over the same. Accordingly, the plaintiffs also obtained the temporary injunction against the original defendant Nos. 1 and 2, whereby, they were restrained from disturbing the possession of the plaintiffs.

6. During the pendency of the suit before the learned Magistrate, some of the plaintiffs as well as defendants died and their legal heirs were accordingly substituted as party.

7. Thereafter, the defendant Nos. 1 and 2, in spite of the order of temporary injunction, illegally sold some parts of the suit land to the original defendant Nos. 18 to 41 by executing some sale deeds suppressing the real facts of order of injunction.

8. After the inclusion of the name of the original defendant Nos. 18 to 41 in the suit as defendants, the plaintiffs sought some new relief and inserted in paragraph No. 22 (d) of the plaint, which reads as under:

“A declaration that all the sale deeds made by the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 in favour of t