The court affirmed that concurrent findings of lower courts on issues of title and limitation are binding unless established as perverse, with the plaintiffs failing to provide necessary evidence.

JUDGMENT :

MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA, J.

1. Heard Mr. S.K. Goswami, the learned counsel for the appellants. Also heard Ms. R. Choudhury, the learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 6.

2. This Regular Second Appeal under Order 42 read with Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, has been filed by the appellants impugning the judgment and decree dated 17.09.2016, passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge, Dhubri, in Title Appeal No. 30/2014, whereby it upheld the Judgment and Decree passed in Title Suit No.402/2005 and dismissed the said appeal.

3. The predecessor-in-interest of the present appellants had instituted a Title Suit No. 402/2005 against the present respondents (wherein the defendants Nos. 1 to 4 are designated as defendants of Group- 1, and the heirs of the Defendant No. 5 are designated as defendants of Group-2).

4. The plaintiffs/appellants had pleaded that their father, Late Sardar Lohar was the tenant in respect of a plot of land measuring about 15 Kathas of land in Koraibari measurement under the Landlords namely, Smt. Nur Nehar Khatun and Smt. Hamida Khatun. It was also pleaded that later on, after abolition of zamindary, the aforesaid land was erroneously recorded as government khas land, even though the plaintiffs’ predecessor, Sardar Lohar was possessing the same as tenant and thus the aforesaid land got recorded as government khas land under Dag no. 924 for an area of land measuring 1 Bigha 1 Katha 6 Lechas in present day system of measurement.

5. Thereafter on the death of Sardar Lohar, his wife Ramrati Devi and His two sons namely, Mahendra Sharma and Raghunath Prasad Sarma instituted Title Suit no. 618/1967 against the State of Assam in respect of the above land and obtained a decree on 23/11/1967 whereby the right, title and interest of the plaintiffs over the above land was declared. The legal heirs of Sardar Lohar used to reside over this land by constructing their houses.

6. The plaintiffs further pleaded that one Mantu Saha, the predecessors of the defendants of Group II, who was also one of the tenants of Nur Nehar Khatun and Hamida Khatun, became shelter less after he was evicted by his above-named landlords; as such he requested Mahendra Sharma (predecessor of plaintiff no.2(i) to 2(v)) to allow him to stay over the land belonging to the plaintiffs and accordingly he was allowed to stay. Thereafter Mantu Saha constructed a two-roof tin shed house over the South Western portion of the homestead land of the plaintiffs in Dag no. 924. After his death, the defendants of Group II, i.e., his legal heirs, started to reside thereon. The plaintiffs have pleaded that lately the Group II defendants have constructed their residential houses over some other land, but still they refused to vacate the suit land.

7. The plaintiffs have also alleged that the Group I defendants, i.e., the legal heirs of Mina Md. Elius had in collusion with the Group II defendants instituted Title Suit no. 266/1996 claiming the suit land, but the plaintiffs came to know about it and as such they prayed for their Impleadment, but their prayer was rejected; hence they had instituted the Title Suit No. 402/2005 for the declaration of their right, title and interest over the suit land and for eviction of the defendants.

8. The plaintiffs have further pleaded that the revenue officials had erroneously issued K