4. On 22.04.2014, at around 2 PM, the respondents/defendants armed with weapons like spears, daos, etc. entered into the suit land and started destroying the bamboo fencing erected thereon. When the appellant raised objection over such nuisance, the defendants attacked him by uttering filthy languages and threatened him with dire consequences. Subsequently, at the intervention of Police of Bordubi P.S, the defendants were not successful in their attempts and left the suit land. It is also the case of the plaintiff/appellant that the defendants had never been in possession of the suit land prior to trespass and he has been in continuous possession over the said land.

5. After examination of the witnesses of both sides and hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the trial court dismissed the title suit filed by the plaintiff on the ground that – “ the suit land is a government land and the suit land is under Touzi Patta No.43 which makes it evident that the appellant used to pay “bedakhali jorimond” for the same. The case record does not reveal anywhere that there was any settlement in favour of the plaintiff. Moreover, payment of Touzi revenue cannot confer any title to anybody over any plot of land.”

6. Against the judgment of the trial court, the plaintiff/appellant preferred an appeal before the Civil Judge, Tinsukia, vide T.A No.04/2016. The learned Civil Judge after hearing the learned counsel for the parties affirmed the judgment of the trial court on the ground which is reproduced as follows – “ In our suit at hand, it does not reveal that any settlement has been made in favour of the plaintiff so as to enter his name in the record of rights. Neither is there any lease granted by the Deputy Commissioner to the plaintiff in respect of the suit land. Entry of the name in the touzi register is not sufficient to hold that lease has been granted by the Deputy Commissioner to the plaintiff and neither does it amount to entry of name in the records of right, so as to create any right in favour of the plaintiff to retain possession of the land….”

7. The second appeal was admitted on the following substantial question of law-

“ Whether the decision of the Courts below on issue no.2 and 3 are perverse for non-consideration of the relevant evidence and for not recording any finding on issue no.2 as to whether the suit land is a Touzi land or annual patta land ! ”

8. It was argued by learned counsel for the plaintiff/appellant that the decision of the trial court as well as the first appellate court on issue no.2 as to whether the suit land is covered by Touzi patta No.43 is not sustainable in law as the same is based on perverse finding for non-consideration of the evidence of PW-3, Lat Mandal of Tinsukia Revenue Circle, who produced the Register of Touzi Patta No.43 vide Ext. 6 and 6(1) which contains the name of the appellant. As such, the plaintiff’s suit for declaration of possessory right over the suit land has been illegally dismissed by the trial court and the first appellate court.

9. Further submission of the learned counsel for the plaintiff/appellant is that while deciding issue no.3 regarding possession of the plaintiff/appellant over the suit land, the courts below have not considered the relevant documentary evidence i.e. Ext. 6 and 6(1) which supports the possession of the plaintiff/appellant over the suit land in addition to the oral evidence of PW-1, PW-2, PW-3 and PW-4.

10. It is also submitted that the learned courts below failed to appreciate the oral evidence of the defence witnesses that the suit land is a ceiling surplus land is beyond and contrary to the pleaded case of the defendants/respondents who has specifically stated in the written statement that the suit land is an annual patta land. Accordingly, learned counsel for the plaintiff/appellant has submitted that the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned court below is not tenable in law as no independent assessment of the pleadings and eviden