IMPORTANT POINT
The defense of adverse possession and limitation must be based on pleadings and proven with foundational facts. A subsequent suit is not barred by limitation if a fresh cause of action accrues.

The instant appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, the Code) is directed against the judgment and decree dated 20.09.2008 passed in Title Appeal No.9/1998 by the learned Civil Judge No.1, Kamrup at Guwahati (for the sake of convenience to be referred to as the ‘learned 1st Appellate Court’) whereby the appeal filed by the appellants was dismissed and the judgment and decree dated 27.01.1998 passed in Title Suit No.141/1992 by the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Div) No.1, Kamrup at Guwhati (for the sake of convenience to be referred to as the ‘learned Trial Court’) was confirmed.

2. This Court vide order dated 11.03.2011 admitted the appeal by formulating four substantial questions of law which reads as under:

(i). Whether the learned courts below committed illegality in holding that Article 65 and 66 are applicable although the act of violation of the terms of tenancy in Schedule A took place in the year 1975 and the act of trespass into the Schedule B land by the defendants also took place in the year 1975 and the suit having been filed in 1992 is barred by limitations?

(ii). Whether the issue as to the questions of tenancy and entitlement and the issue of eviction having already been decided in T.S.No.44/85 and T.A.No.49/85, the present suit is hit by Section 11 read with Order 2 Rule 2 of the CPC?

(iii). Whether the defendants’ possession in Schedule B land is adverse irrespective of whether or not they are tenants in Schedule A land?

(iv). Whether the learned First Appellate Court erred in granting relief of eviction over the Schedule B land without determining the question of title over the same and in absence of any relief for declaration of title over it being by the plaintiffs?

3. The question as to whether the above four substantial questions of law, which have been formulated by this Court are involved in the instant appeal, this Court finds it relevant to take note of the background which led to the filing of the instant appeal.

4. The predecessor-in-interest of the respondents herein filed a suit before the Court of the learned Munsiff at Guwahati which was registered and numbered as Title Suit No.141/1992 against the appellants herein. The plaintiffs in the said suit claimed to be joint owners and pattadars of a plot of land measuring 1 katha, 19 lessas covered by Dag No.693 of Kheraj Periodic Patta No.43 situated at village Bejera under Mouza Barbangshor in the district of Kamrup. The plaintiffs claimed that they had constructed three thatched houses upon the said plot of land and let out the same to various tenants on monthly rental basis. It was mentioned in the plaint that the defendants in the said suit were the sons and daughters of one Harendra Nath Deka (since deceased) who took two out of the three thatched house from the plaintiffs on an oral agreement to pay monthly rental of Rs.40/-. The said tenancy commenced from the month of January, 1973. During that period of time, Late Harendra Nath Deka used those tenanted premises for the purpose of running a tea stall. Thereupon, after the death of Late Harendra Nath Deka, the defendants continued to be in occupation of the two houses as monthly tenant under the plaintiffs. The said thatched houses have been more specifically described in Schedule-A to the plaint. It was further alleged in the plaint that sometime in the month of August 1975, the predecessor-in-interest of the defendants defaulted in payment of the monthly rent. Subsequent to the death of Late Harendra Nath Deka, the defendants stopped making payment in respect to the Schedule-A houses since the month of August, 1975 and as such it was stated that the said defendants were defaulters. It was also mentioned in the plaint that the defendant Nos.1 to 6 illegally and unauthorizedly affixed asbestos sheets on the roof of one of the thatched houses and also illegally constructed on 15.08.1975, two thatched houses upon the vacant plot of land measuring about 8 less