The first appellate court's findings of fact are final unless found to be manifestly perverse or contrary to the evidence on record.

JUDGMENT :

MALASRI NANDI, J.

1. Heard Mr. I. Alam, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. L.R. Mazumder, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. This is a second appeal under Section 100 CPC filed by the appellant/defendant against the judgment dated 15.05.2001 and decree dated 21.05.2001 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Davison) Morigaon in Title Appeal No. 11/99 allowing the appeal preferred by the respondents/plaintiffs by setting aside the judgment and decree dated 30.01.1999 and 03.02.1999 respectively passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) No. 1, Morigaon in Title Suit No. 90/1993 dismissing the suit filed by the respondents/plaintiffs.

3. When the appeal was admitted, the following substantial question of law was framed:

(a) Whether the first appellate court committed illegality by admitting Ext. ‘Kha’ in to evidence in spite of strong objections from the appellant/defendant side as Ext. ‘Kha’ was obtained fraudulently in collusion with the settlement authority and that to without serving proper notice as required under the law.

4. The respondents as plaintiffs filed a title suit before the court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Morigaon for declaration of right, title, interest and confirmation of possession over the suit land measuring 6 Bighas 1 Katha 14 Lechas covered by Dag No. 405 of patta No. 204 at the village Satarbari Kismat under mouza and police station Mikirbheta in the district of Morigaon and also for permanent injunction.

5. The case of the plaintiffs/respondents is that their mother late Asabunessa was the owner of the suit land and during her life time, she was possessing the said land and after her death, the plaintiffs possessed the land in question. They contended that the suit land was made cultivable by clearing jungles about 40 years back and the land was converted in to annual patta land in the name of their mother and subsequently, the land was converted to periodic patta land in the name of Asabunessa. But on 02.03.1987, the appellant/defendant tried to dispossess them forcibly. The plaintiffs then filed a case under Section 145/146 Cr.P.C. and the land was attached. By the act of the defendants, the right, title and interest over the property of the plaintiffs became clouded and therefore, they had brought the aforesaid suit before the court of Civil Judge, Morigaon.

6. The appellant as defendant had contested the suit by filing written statement. In the written statement, the defendants denied the claims and allegations of the plaintiffs for their dispossession from the suit land. Their case is that the suit land when it was annual patta land, stood in the name of their father and the mother of plaintiffs and on the eastern side of the suit land, the plaintiffs mother possessed 2 Bighas 3 Kathas 2 Lechas of land and in the middle portion was possessed by the father of the defendant Makbul and in the western side 1 Bighas 2 Kathas 12 Lechas was possessed by the defendant No. 2. Later, the mother of the plaintiffs sold the portion of land measuring 2 Bighas 3 Kathas 2 Lechas in the year 1971 to one Milauddin. Thereafter, Millauddin sold the said land to the defendant Ala Box in 1979. Since then, the defendants had been possessing their own portion of land but the plaintiffs in collusion with Mondal, Kanango and official of sub-registrar got the entire land mutated in the name of their mother late Asabunessa without having possession over the suit land. Hence, the plaintiffs were not entitled to claim any right over the suit land and therefore, the defendants prayed for dismissal of the suit.

7. On the pleading of both parties, 7 (seven) number of issues were framed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), wherein the main issue was whether the plaintiffs have right, title and possession over the suit land.

8. The learned Civil Judge (Junior Davison) after discussing the evidence of the witnesses as well as the documents available in the record, dismissed the suit o