IMPORTANT POINT
Concurrent findings of fact by the Trial Court and First Appellate Court are binding and cannot be interfered with under Section 100 of the CPC.

JUDGMENT :

(Robin Phukan, J.)

Heard Mr. C. Sharma, learned counsel for the appellants and also heard Ms. R. Choudhury, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. This regular second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, is directed against the judgment dated 27.09.2016 and decree dated 30.09.2016 passed in Title Appeal No.10/2015 by the learned Civil Judge, Bongaigaon. It is to be noted here that vide impugned judgment dated 27.09.2016 and decree dated 30.09.2016, the learned Civil Judge, Bongaigaon, has upheld the judgment and decree passed in Title Suit No.44/2007 by the learned Munsiff, North Salmara, Abhayapuri.

3. The back grounds facts leading to filing of the present appeal is briefly stated as under:-

“The respondents herein, as plaintiffs, instituted a title suit before the learned Munsiff, North Salmara at Abhayapuri, for declaration of right, title and interest over the suit land measuring 3.25 lecha, which is part of the Schedule-B land by evicting the appellants herein. The case of the respondents was that the respondent Nos.1 to 4 have jointly owned and possessed a plot of land measuring 1 katha at Abhayapuri town under Srijangram Revenue Circle. Each of the respondents had owned 5 lechas of land and the said respondents have possessed the suit land jointly. The appellants have their land in the eastern side of the Schedule- A land. The respondent No.1 purchased a plot of land measuring 5 lecha from the original pattadar Sri Nripen Das through a registered sale deed No.410/2000, dated 22.02.2000 and the respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4 on the same date also purchased a plot of land measuring 5 lechas each, from Nripen Das vide registered sale deed Nos.413/2000, 411/2000 and 412/2000, respectively. The possession of the aforesaid lands was given to the respondents herein and this way the respondents owned total 1 katha land. The respondents thereafter mutated their names in the aforesaid total 1 katha land and they have raised bamboo fencing surrounding the said plot of land. Thereafter, on 12.05.2000, the appellants herein removed the fencing in the eastern side and encroached upon 5 lechas of the land of the respondents, which has been specially mentioned in the Schedule-B of the plaint and accordingly, the respondents were dispossessed from the aforesaid land. Thereafter, a demarcation case was filed before the Assistant Settlement Officer (ASO), Srijangram Circle, being Demarcation Case No.72/2000. Thereafter, the ASO had demarcated the land along with his staff in presence of the respondents herein and the appellants on 12.02.2001 and in the said plot of land, the appellants herein have no right, title and interest over the Schedule-B land and they have trespassed into the same illegally. In the said suit, the appellants herein appeared and contested the same by filing written statement and they have denied the case of the respondents. But the appellants admitted that the respondents had purchased the land described in Schedule-A of the plaint vide separate sale deeds and accordingly, took the possession and that the appellants had right, title, interest and possession over the suit land measuring 1 katha 5 lechas covered by Patta No.718(old), 1127/324(new), Dag No.1246(old)/250(new) situated at Abhayapuri town under Srijangram Revenue Circle since the days of their predecessor-in-interest late Dandi Ram Kakoti over 57 years.

Upon the pleadings of the parties and the documents placed on record, the learned Trial Court has framed following issues:-

1. Is the suit undervalued and stamped?

2. Is the suit bad for non-joinder of necessary parties?

3. Is the plaintiffs had the right, title and interest over the suit land and also entitled to get khas possession of the same?

4. What relief(s) the plaintiffs is entitled?

Thereafter, hearing both the parties and taking the evidence of both sides, the learned Trial Court had decided the Issue No.1 in negative and in favour of the plaintiffs and Issue No.2 also