IMPORTANT POINT
The court upheld the lower courts' findings, emphasizing the limited scope of re-appreciating evidence in second appeals under Section 100 CPC.

JUDGMENT :

(Robin Phukan, J.)

Heard Mr. J. Ahmed, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. A.C. Sharma, learned Senior counsel, assisted by Mr. G. Bharadwaj, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. This second appeal, under Section 100 of the CPC, is directed against the judgment dated 29.01.2015 and decree dated 13.02.2015, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Dhubri, in Title Appeal No. 33/2007.

3. It is to be noted here that vide impugned judgment dated 29.01.2015 and decree dated 13.02.2015, the learned Civil Judge, Dhubri had upheld the judgment and decree dated 23.05.2007, passed by the learned Munsiff No. 1, Dhubri, in Title Suit No. 313/2001.

4. The background facts, leading to filing of the present appeal, are briefly stated as under:

“That the respondents herein as plaintiffs instituted a title suit, being Title Suit No. 313/2001, against the appellant/ defendants, stating that they had purchased a plot of land measuring 5 bighas 2 kathas 11 lechas, covered by Dag No. 592/594 of Khatian No. 157, and the same had been described in Schedule-A of the plaint and thereafter, they had been possessing the same. The appellant/defendants entered into possession of a plot of land measuring 1 katha 5 lechas out of the aforesaid Schedule-A land and the said land is described in Schedule - B of the plaint. Thereafter, the respondents had requested the appellant/defendants to vacate the suit land, but the said request failed to yield any result. Being left with no other option, the respondents/plaintiffs instituted the aforementioned title suit for declaration of right, title and interest over the suit land and for eviction of the appellant/defendants. The appellant/defendants contested the suit by filing written statement and the stand that they had taken is that they purchased the suit land in the year 1981, vide registered sale deed No. 3908, dated 16.11.1981. Their further contention was that the plaintiffs purchased the adjacent land sometime in the year 1990 and according to the appellant/defendants, the land purchased by the respondents/plaintiffs is not included in the land purchased and possessed by the appellant/defendants and therefore, it was contended to dismiss the suit.

Upon the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court had framed the following issues:

(1) Is this maintainable in its present form and manner?

(2) Is there any cause of action for this suit?

(3) Is this suit barred by limitation?

(4) Is this suit barred by res-judicata?

(5) Is this suit under-valued?

(6) Whether the plaintiffs have right, title, interest and possession over A schedule land?

(7) Whether the plaintiffs were dispossessed from the B schedule land on 20/4/1994 by the defendants?

(8) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to khas possession over B schedule land by evicting the defendants therefrom and by demolishing structures?

(9) To what relief, if any, the plaintiffs are entitled?

Thereafter, hearing both the parties, and also considering the evidence of the concerned parties, the learned trial Court, vide judgment and decree dated 23.05.2007, decreed the suit.

Being aggrieved, the appellant/defendants preferred an appeal, being Title Appeal No. 33/2007, before the Court of learned Civil Judge, Dhubri. Thereafter, the learned Civil Judge, Dhubri had framed the following four points for determination:

(i) Whether the learned trial Court had rightly decided the issue No. 1 wherein the learned trial Court held that the suit is maintainable?

(ii) Whether the learned trial Court had rightly decided the issue No. 2 wherein the learned trial Court held that the plaintiff had the cause of action for the suit?

(iii) Whether the learned trial Court had rightly decided the issue Nos. 6, 7 and 8, wherein the learned trial Court held that the plaintiffs have the right, title and interest over the suit land and that the defendants had dispossessed the plaintiffs from the suit land and are liable to be evicted from the suit land?

(iv) Whether the learned trial Court had