SMTI HARESWARI HAZOWARI, W/O LATE MAHAT HAZOWARI AND SRI HIMU HAZOWARI, SON OF LATE MAHAT HAZOWARI, BOTH ARE RESIDENTS OF DUDHNOI, P.O. DUDHNOI, DIST. GOALPARA, ASSAM Vs. SRI MADAN RABHA, S/O LATE SANI RAM RABHA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal by the plaintiffs is directed against the judgment and decree dated 28.9.2001 passed by the learned Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Goalpara in Title Appeal No. 2/2001 dismissing the appeal preferred by the plaintiffs/appellants by upholding the judgment and decree dated 30.10.2000 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), No. 1, Goalpara in Title Suit No. 31/1995. The appellants, as plaintiffs, instituted the suit for declaration of right, title and interest over the plot of land measuring 10 lechas under Dag No. 172/520 of village Thekesu Part I under Dudhnoi Circle, contending inter alia that the plaintiff Nos. 1 and 2 are the owner of 4 bighas 1 kathas of land covered by Dag No. 172/520, out of which 17 lechas of land was transferred to one Madan Lal Todi, leaving 4 bighas 0 kathas 3 lechas in the name of the plaintiffs, in respect of which land the plaintiff No. 2's name was also mutated in the last settlement operation along with the plaintiff No. 1 being the owners of the land. It is also the pleaded case of the plaintiffs that out of 4 bighas 0 kathas 3 lechas of land, the defendant in the middle of 1993 trespassed into 10 lechas of land and despite the protest of the plaintiff No. 2 started construction of houses thereby clouding the title of the plaintiff for which the suit has been filed for declaration of right, title and interest and for recovery of khas possession by demolishing the structures thereon and by evicting the defendants.

(2.) THE suit was contested by the defendants by filing a joint written statement denying the title of the plaintiffs and also taking the plea that the suit is barred by limitation. It has also been pleaded that the defendants are possessing the suit land for 30 -35 years by constructing houses thereon and their right over the land has ripen by prescription of law i.e. by right of adverse possession.

(3.) WHETHER the suit land is the khas land or patta land of the plaintiffs -