IMPORTANT POINT
The court upheld the lower courts' findings that the plaintiff proved his title and possession over the suit land, emphasizing that factual determinations cannot be disturbed without evidence of perversity.

JUDGMENT :

DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.

Heard Mr. R.P. Sarmah, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. S.K. Ghosh, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants.

2. The instant appeal is an Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 challenging the judgment and decree dated 27.04.2009 passed by the Court of the learned Civil Judge, Dhubri (hereinafter referred to as ‘the learned Appellate Court’) thereby affirming the judgment and decree dated 10.03.2000 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) No. 1, Dhubri (hereinafter referred to as ‘the learned Trial Court’) in Title Suit No. 212/93 wherein the suit instituted by the plaintiff was decreed.

3. It is seen from an order dated 17.12.2019 that the instant appeal was admitted by formulating a substantial question of law i.e.:

(1) Whether the learned Courts below had erred in law in declaring the title of the plaintiffs over the suit land on the basis of Exhibit 1 and Exhibit Ka?

To appreciate as to whether the said substantial question of law is involved in the instant appeal, this Court finds it relevant to take note of the facts leading to the instant proceedings.

4. It is seen from the materials on record that the original respondent herein as plaintiff had instituted a suit seeking declaration of his right, title, interest and possession over the Schedule A land; for a decree for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from entering into the land of the Schedule A or doing anything disturbing in the use and possession of the plaintiff etc.

5. The case of the plaintiff in brief is that by a registered deed of sale bearing Deed No. 4255 dated 28.07.1982, the plaintiff had purchased a plot of land as described in Schedule A to the plaint from the proforma defendant Nos. 1 and 2. It has been specifically pleaded that the defendants who are the step brothers of the proforma defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 3 had no share in the land of the Schedule A. However, out of sheer greed, in the last Aswin 1399, the defendants suddenly removed and stole away the paddy from a part of the land of Schedule A for which the plaintiff initiated a theft case against them. It was also pleaded in the plaint that the plaintiff apprehends that the defendants would again conspire to enter into the Schedule A land and as such, the suit was filed seeking the reliefs as aforementioned.

6. The defendant No. 1 had filed a written statement denying the case of the plaintiff. It is the claim of the defendant No. 1 in the written statement that the said defendant possessed the suit land covered by Dag Nos. 34 and 55 by right of inheritance and also by right of purchase. It was further stated in the written statement that the proforma defendants never had possession over the said land. It was further denied that the defendants had sold any part of the suit land to the plaintiff or delivered possession to the plaintiff. It was further stated that the plaintiff should have filed a suit for partitions if he has got any share in the suit land, however, not a suit in the present form.

7. On the basis of the averments made in the pleadings, as many as 8(eight) issues were framed by the learned Trial Court. The said issues are as herein under:

“ 1. Whether the suit is maintainable?

2. Whether there is any cause of action for the suit?

3. Whether the suit is barred by limitation?

4. Whether the suit is barred by Section 34 of the SR Act?

5. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties?

6. Whether plaintiff has right, title and possession over the suit land?

7. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get the decree as prayed for?

8. To what relief/reliefs, if any, the parties are entitled to?”

8. On behalf of the plaintiff, 4 (four) witnesses were examined and 4 (four) documents were exhibited. On behalf of the defendants, the defendant No. 1 adduced evidence as