The plaintiff must prove ownership and continuous possession of the land, maintaining the burden of proof to establish title in her favor.

JUDGMENT :

ROBIN PHUKAN, J.

Heard Mr. B.D. Deka, learned counsel for the appellant.

Also heard Mr. S. Chauhan, learned counsel for the respondent No.1.

2. This second appeal, under Section 100 of the CPC, is directed against the judgment and decree dated 01.06.2022, passed by the learned Civil Judge No. 2, Kamrup(M) at Guwahati, in Title Appeal No. 52/2016.

3. It is to be noted here that vide impugned judgment and decree, dated 01.06.2022, the learned Civil Judge No. 2, Kamrup(M) at Guwahati ("first appellate Court", for short) had allowed the appeal by reversing the judgment and decree dated 04.06.2016, passed by the learned Munsiff No. 1, Kamrup(M) at Guwahati ("trial Court‟, for short), in Title Suit No. 134/2009.

4. For the sake of convenience and to avoid confusion, the parties herein are referred to in the same status, as they appeared in the suit.

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

“The appellant herein, namely, Smti. Moutushi Dutta as plaintiff, had instituted a suit against the defendant/respondent No. 1 herein, namely, Sri Radhya Shyam Sarkar, for declaration of her right, title and interest over the suit land and also for recovery of possession and permanent injunction.

The case of the plaintiff is that Late Dandiram Kumar and Raheswar Kumar were the exclusive owner and possessor of a plot of land covered by Patta No. 25. After disposal of land by various manner, a plot of land measuring 3 bighas 4 kathas 7‰ lechas remained in the hands of Sri Ananta Kumar, son of Late Dandi Ram Kumar; Sri Arun Kumar and Sri Jagadish Kumar, both sons of Raheswar Kumar and these three persons jointly executed a power of attorney, appointing and empowering Sri Ranjit Kumar Dey, son of Late Dasarath Kumar Dey, vide registered deed No. 5299, dated 16.10.1996, to sell the above mentioned 3 bighas 4 kathas 7‰ lechas of land. Thereafter, Sri Ranjit Kumar Dey, on the strength of the aforesaid power of attorney, being deed No. 5299, dated 16.10.1996, sold 1 katha 5 lechas of land out of the aforesaid total land of 3 bighas 4 kathas 7‰ lechas to Sri Ajit Chandra Das, by executing a registered deed of sale, bearing deed No. 3422/98, dated 23.06.1998. Thereafter, Sri Ajit Chandra Das, after eight years, sold the aforesaid land to Smti. Moutushi Dutta/plaintiff, vide registered deed of sale, bearing No. 10870/2007, dated 31.08.2007, through his power of attorney holder Sri Suman Das Gupta. The power of attorney being deed No.3151, dated 07.06.2006 was executed by Ajit Chandra Das, in favour of Suman Das Gupta, authorising him to sale his land. At the time of execution of the sale deed by Sri Ranjit Kumar Dey, in favour of Sri Ajit Chandra Das, the boundary of the land was shown wrongly, and as such subsequently, vide a deed of rectification, being deed No. 10194/08, dated 18.07.2008, the boundary was rectified, and similarly, the boundary in respect of the land sold to the plaintiff was also rectified, vide rectification deed No. 11049, dated 18.08.2008. In the month of March, 2008, when the plaintiff started construction of boundary wall and was about to affix a gate on the southern side of the land, the defendant appeared and started claiming the suit land to be his own and forcibly tried to enter upon there, but could not succeed. However, finally the defendant in a most illegal and arbitrary manner, forcibly entered upon the suit land, with the help of some hired women and took possession of the same.

The defendant had contested the suit by filing written statement, wherein he denied all the claims of the plaintiff. He stat