The burden of proof lies on the person who would fail if no evidence at all were given on either side. In this case, the appellants did not discharge their burden of proving their stand, and the court found no substantial questions of law to arise for decision.

ORDER :

1. Heard Mr. P.K. Das, learned counsel for the appellants at the stage of admission under Order XLI, Rule 11 of the CPC.

2. The appellants are the defendants in T.S. No. 103/2011, which was filed by the respondent for declaration of right, title, interest and confirmation of possession over the suit land described in Schedule-B, C, and D of the plaint, for permanent injunction and other reliefs. The said suit was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 20.05.2016, passed by the learned Civil Judge No.2, Kamrup (M), Guwahati. The aggrieved appellants had preferred an appeal, which was registered as T.A. No. 16/2016, which was dismissed by the learned Addl. District Judge (FTC) No.3, Kamrup (M), Guwahati vide judgment and decree dated 14.11.2019. This appeal is directed against concurrent finding of the learned Courts below.

3. In brief, the case projected in the plaint is that Bhulia Boro and Amulya Boro were the original pattadars of land measuring 7B-1K-0L, covered by Dag No. 9 (old)/ 145 (new) of K.P. Patta No. 55 (old)/1191 (new) of Village- Jyotikuchi, Mouza- Beltola in the district of Kamrup (M). Vide sale deed no. 924 of 1970, they sold 3B-2K-10L of aforesaid land to Mahendra Basumatary, father of appellants, in whose names the said land was mutated and upon his death, the land was mutated in the names of the appellants and their mother Subhadra Basumatary. It is projected that the appellants had appointed Narayan Basumatary as their constituted attorney vide registered special power of attorney bearing registered deed no. 2603/91 dated 15.11.1991, empowering him to sell 3B-2K-10L land to Dhananjoy Kr. Dey and accordingly, after obtaining permission from the Deputy Commissioner, vide registered sale deed no. 2793 dated 29.04.1992, 3B land was sold to the said Dhananjoy Kr. Dey. Thereafter, the said Dhananjoy Kr. Dey sold 1K of the said land to one Smt. Swapna Das (proforma defendant no. 1), vide registered sale deed no. 7548/07 dated 07.06.2007 after obtaining permission from the Deputy Commissioner and G.M.D.A., who in turn sold the said 1K land to the respondent vide registered sale deed no. 10528 dated 04.09.2009 after obtaining permission from the Deputy Commissioner. It is further projected that Dhananjoy Kr. Das sold 2K out of his remaining land to Bhanuranjan Das (proforma defendant no.2) vide registered sale deed no. 7549/07 dated 07.06.2007 after obtaining permission from the Deputy Commissioner and thereafter, sold the said land to the respondent- plaintiff vide registered sale deed no. 10527 dated 04.09.2009 after obtaining permission from the Deputy Commissioner. The said Dhananjoy Kr. Dey sold another 1K land to Smt. Swapna Dutta Roy (proforma defendant no. 3) vide registered sale deed no. 7547/07 dated 07.06.2007 after obtaining permission from the Deputy Commissioner and G.M.D.A., who in turn sold the said 1K land to the respondent vide registered sale deed no. 10526 dated 04.09.2009 after obtaining permission from the Deputy Commissioner. The said purchased plots of land were mutated in the name of the respondent- plaintiff. It was projected in the plaint that sometime the respondent resided there and some time a chowkidar was appointed by the respondent-plaintiff and proforma defendant nos. 4 to 10 to reside there. On 28.12.2010, the respondent was threatened by the appellants with eviction, as such, the respondent approached the Court of Addl. District Magistrate, Kamrup (M), Guwahati by filing proceeding under section 145 Cr.P.C. and to attach the land and accordingly, the suit land was attached by the Addl. District Magistrate, Kamrup (M), vide order dated 28.01.2011 passed in Case No. 9m/2011. Thereafter, the suit was filed.

4. On contest by the appellants, the suit was heard by framing the following issues for trial, viz.,

(1) Whether there is cause of action for the suit?

(2) Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form and manner?

(3) Whether the suit is barred by limitation?

(4) Whether th