(1.) THIS second appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree dated 5.9.2003 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Morigaon in Title Appeal No. 15/2003 affirming the judgment and decree dated 11.4.2003 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Morigaon in Title Suit No. 26/1995.
(2.) THE suit was filed by Paresh Chandra Hazarika @ Probodh Chandra Hazarika and Prodip Chandra Hazarika. It is not disputed that Prodip Chandra Hazarika died a bachelor during pendency of the suit.
(3.) THE principle defendant Nos. 1 to 3 filed written statement. It was pleaded in the written statement, apart from other legal pleas, that the suit is barred by principle of adverse possession. Boundary of the land described in Schedule B was disputed. It was admitted that Bijia Das @ Bejia had purchased 1 bigha 2 kathas 10 lechas out of 2 bighas 3 kathas 17 lechas from Kera Kaibarta and accordingly, mutation was granted in his favour. The sale allegedly made by Bijia Das measuring 1 bigha to the plaintiffs by registered sale deed No. 991 dated 9.6.1978 and delivery of possession was denied with the assertion that Bijia Das and his family members were continuously in possession of the suit land till his death in the year 1987 and after his death, the defendants are continuously in possession of the suit land by residing in the dwelling houses constructed by Bijia Das. The averments made in the plaint to the effect that possession was delivered was stoutly denied and it was pleaded that mutation granted without possession was not valid in law. The plea of the plaintiffs that on the request of the defendants the plaintiff No. 1 allowed them to reside on a small portion of the suit land was also specifically denied. It was also pleaded that the registered deed, by virtue of which the plaintiffs allegedly claimed the suit land, is a forged deed executed by impersonation and as such no rights can flow to the plaintiffs by virtue of such fraudulent registered deed without any delivery of possession.