A party's right to present evidence on ownership must be duly recognized; failure to address critical issues of fact leads to flawed judgments.

JUDGMENT :

PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA, J.

1. Heard Mr. A.C. Sarma, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants as well as Mr. B. Chakravarty, learned counsel representing the respondents.

2. This is a Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 of the CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE (CPC) whereby the judgment dated 25.11.2013 passed by the court of learned Civil Judge, Nagaon, Assam in Title Appeal No.02/2010 affirming the judgment and decree dated 22.12.2009 passed in T.S. No.01/2000 by the learned Munsiff No.1, Nagaon.

3. The appellants were the plaintiffs before the trial court. The suit land consists of 1 bigha of land out of 3 bigha 3 katha 13 lechas covered by dag No.111, P.P. No.34 of Rangulu, Kissamat under Kathiatoli Mouza in the district of Nagaon. The said land was earlier covered by P.P. No.109 and Dag No.95 of 1930-31 settlement period and originally owned by Rupa Gaonburah Mikir and Saruman Mikir. On 06.03.1962, Saruman Mikir sold 2 bighas of lands to Mofijuddin, S/o. Monuar Ali and handed over possession. In the meantime, the said Mofijuddin appointed Jamini Mohan Paul as his Attorney. The Attorney was appointed to look after and also to sale the land. On 08.07.1983, Jamini Mohan Paul sold the said land to the appellants by executing a registered sale deed No.575 and also delivered possession of the same. Since then, the appellants are in possession of the land. They mutated their names in respect of the said lands.

4. It may be mentioned that in the aforesaid sale deed, it was not mentioned that Jamini Mohan Paul was an Attorney of Mofijuddin. Therefore, a rectification deed being Deed No.854 dated 13.08.1999 was executed.

5. The remaining 1 bigha of land remained in possession of Rupa Gaon Burah Mikir and he sold the said 1 bigha of land to the appellants on 06.10.1982 by executing the sale deed no.2112. Possession of the land was also delivered.

6. The respondents had their lands on the eastern boundary of the aforementioned plot of lands. The revenue authorities had clearly demarcated the said boundary.

7. On 03.06.1997 and on 09.07.1997, the respondents allegedly constructed thatched houses over the suit land. At the behest of the appellants, the learned Executive Magistrate exercising power under Section 107 of the CrPC, attached the suit land and directed the parties to approach the civil court for seeking relief. Accordingly, the suit was filed.

8. The respondents contested the suit by filing the written statement. According to the respondents, as per 1930-31 settlement operation, a person called Amori Mikir, S/o. Boga Mikir was the owner of the suit land. After his death, his sons Rupa Gaon Burah Mikir and Saruman Mikir, inherited the land, each having equal share over the land.

9. At one point of time, Rupa Gaon Burah Mikir was in need of money. Therefore, he handed over the possession of 1 bigha 3 kathas and 13 lechas of land to the father of the present respondents at as price of Rs.350/- and after executing an agreement for sale. Rupa Gaon Burah Mikir also took another amount of Rs.150/- from Anfor Ali, the father of the present respondents.

10. Before execution of any sale deed, Rupa Gaon Burah Mikir, died on 05.02.1972 without leaving any heir. But Anfor Ali, the father of the respondents continued to possess the said plot of land till his death.

11. The respondents claimed that Anfor Ali had become the owner of the land and the appellants have no right, title and interest over the said land.

12. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed the following issues:

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

2. Whether the suit is maintainable?

3. Whether the suit