The courts determined that original sale deeds substantiate ownership claims and that appellants failed to prove adverse possession or proper misjoinder arguments, leading to dismissal of the appeal.

ORDER :

Kalyan Rai Surana, J.

1. Heard Mrs. R. Choudhury, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. J.I. Barbhuiya, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1 to 3.

2. This appeal under Section 100 CPC is directed against the judgment and decree dated 07.07.2023 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Morigaon in TA 15/2019. By the said appellate judgment, the appeal of the appellants herein was dismissed and the judgment and decree dated 20.05.2019 passed by the learned Munsiff [now re-designated as Civil Judge (Junior Division)] No.1, Morigaon in TS 52/2016, by which the suit of the respondents-plaintiffs was decreed.

3. The concurrent finding of the learned Courts below is assailed by the appellants on the strength of the five substantial question of law as formulated by the learned counsel for the appellants, which are as follows:

1. Whether the findings arrived at by the learned First Appellate Court as well as learned trial court are correct for not considering the various pleadings and evidences in its proper perspective?

2. Whether the learned courts are correct in allowing the suit of the respondents/plaintiffs whereas the suit is itself not maintainable for misjoinder of parties and misjoinder of various causes of action in one suit?

3. Whether the judgment and decree passed by the learned First Appellate Court and the learned trial court in allowing the suit of the plaintiffs without considering the provisions of law as enumerated under Article 65 of the LIMITATION ACT , 1963?

4. Whether the Judgment and decree passed by both the learned courts below are correct in allowing the suit of the respondents/plaintiff without any proof of the Exhibits 2,5,6 & 8 (the original registered sale deeds) in accordance with law?

5. Any other substantial questions of law that may arise at the time of hearing?

4. The respondent nos. 1 to 3 are the plaintiffs in TS 104/2016. In the plaint there are 17 principal defendants and 13 proforma defendants. The suit was for declaration of right, title and interest and recovery of possession as well as decree for permanent injunction in respect of land described in schedule A, B, C and D of the plaint. The Schedule A land is a plot of land measuring 1 katha out of 10B-3K-8L covered by Dag no. 243 Patta no. 84 and 12 lessa out of 2K-6L covered by Dag No. 206, P.P. No. 84 situated at Chaharigaon under Mouza- Moirabari, PS- Laharighat in the district of Morigaon. The Schedule B land is a plot of land measuring 17 lessa covered by Dag No. 205/204, patta no. 188/29 of Chahariagaon Kissam under Mouza- Moirabari, PS Laharighat in the district of Morigaon. The Schedule C land is a plot of land measuring 4 lessa out of 2K-6L in Dag No. 206 patta no. 84 and land measuring 4K-16L out of 10B-3K- 8L covered by Dag No. 243, P.P. No. 84 of Chahariagaon Kissam under Mouza- Moirabari, PS- Laharighat in the district of Morigaon. The Schedule D land is a plot of land measuring 1K-6L covered by Dag No. 242/243 patta no. 84 of Chahariagaon Kissam under Mouza- Moirabari, PS- Laharighat in the district of Morigaon. The four boundaries are mentioned in the plaint, which are not reiterated herein.

5. It is claimed that the original pattadar of the suit land was one Rumed Ali @ Rume and it is