The plea of res-judicata must be raised in the pleadings and substantiated by producing the copies of the pleadings, issues, and the judgment in the previous case. The substantial question of law proposed by the appellant was not found to be substantial and could not be formulated under Sec. 100(4) of the Code of Civil Procedure.

JUDGMENT :

DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.

1. Heard Mr. M. H. Rajbarbhuiyan the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellants and Ms. R. Choudhury, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent.

2. This is an application under Sec. 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short the “Code”) challenging the judgment and decree dated 16/5/2018 passed in Title Appeal No. 29/2017 whereby the said appeal was dismissed, thereby affirming the judgment and decree passed by learned Munsiff No. 2, Hailakandi in Title Suit No. 95/2010

3. The instant appeal has been taken up for consideration at the stage of Order XLI Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short the “Code”) as to whether there arises any substantial question of law for admission of the instant appeal to be formulated in terms with Sec. 100(4) of the Code of Civil Procedure. For the purpose of deciding the said aspect of the matter, it would be relevant to take note of the brief facts of the case. For the purpose of convenience, the parties before this Court are referred in the same status as they were before the Trial Court.

4. The case of the plaintiff is that one Arju Mia Laskar (since deceased) the father of the plaintiff was the owner and in possession of R.S. Patta No. 5 which included Dag Nos.122/135 and R.S. Patta No. 23 which included Dag No. 120. The total area of the land was 3 Bighas 9 Kathas 4 Chataks. On the basis of Resettlement operation, a single patta was issued being Patta No. 44 under Dag No. 119/121/134 which consisted of 3 Bighas 9 Kathas 4 Chataks. The said Late Arju Mia Laskar died leaving behind sons and daughters who inherited the said Patta i.e. Patta No. 44 and the land included therein. It is stated in the plaint that there was amicable partition amongst the heirs of Late Arju Mia Laskar and the suit land fell into the share of the plaintiff. It has been further mentioned that the plaintiff was in possession of the entire Patta land till 1976 growing sali paddy over the same. The plaintiffs further have averred in the plaint that the predecessor of the Defendant Nos.3 to 5 illegally and mala fidely claimed that the suit patta land is their grandfather's land who had purchased the same vide a Sale Deed dated 20/5/1925. However, the plaintiffs refused the same stating inter alia that the deed is collusive, forged, illegal, back dated and fictitious. The predecessors of the Defendant Nos.3 to 5, one Abdul Mussabir filed a C.R. Case No. 88/1976 against the plaintiff and others, however, the plaintiffs and others were acquitted on 6/4/1977. Subsequent thereto, the said Mussabir Ali filed the Case No. 41/81 under Sec. 145 Cr.P.C. against the plaintiff and others in respect to the Dag and Patta land. However, the said Mussabir Ali failed to get possession over the suit patta land. The Defendant Nos.3 to 5 thereafter, filed a suit being Title Suit No. 7/1979 for cancellation of the khatian in respect to the suit patta land. The said suit was dismissed against which an appeal was filed being Title Appeal No. 20/89 which was also dismissed with costs. Subsequent thereto, the Defendant Nos.3 to 5 again filed another suit being Title Suit No. 58/1984 for declaration of their right, title and interest and recovery of possession of the entire suit patta land. The said suit was decreed against which a Title Appeal No. 21/94 was filed. In Title Appeal No. 21/94, the suit of the Defendant Nos.3 to 5 and others were dismissed. Against the said judgment and decree passed in Title Appeal No. 21/94, an appeal was preferred before this Court. This court vide an order remanded the matter back to the Lower Appellate Court for a fresh consideration of the matter. The Lower Appellate Court vide a judgment and decree dated 11/9/2002, allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit filed by the Defendant Nos.3 to 5.

5. It is the further case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff in the meantime sold out his various plots of land in Dag No. 121, Dag No. 119 in tot