(1.) Heard Mr. L. K. Borah, learned counsel for the appellant .
(2.) Judgment and Decree dated 14.10.2015 passed in Title Appeal No. 2 of 2014 by the learned Civil Judge, Darrang, Mangaldoi is under challenge in this second appeal. The appellant herein as the plaintiff filed the suit against the present defendants respondents for declaration of his right, title, interest and recovery of possession and injunction. The basis of claim of the plaintiff appellant is that he purchased the suit land by way of registered sale deed from two of the co-owners of the total patta land covering 10 bighas and odd. After possession was delivered by the vendors the defendants respondents dispossessed him from the land purchased. The defendants respondents filed their joint written statement thereby raising the plea that unless and until the total land covered by suit patta is formally partitioned by metes and bound between the heirs of Dhaneswar Nath and Jogeswar Nath, the plaintiff's suit is not maintainable. Amongst various issues, whether the suit is maintainable and the plaintiff appellant is entitled for declaration of right, title and interest and possession over the 'Ga' schedule land were framed. 'Ga' schedule land covers the suit land from which the plaintiff appellant claimed to have been dispossessed by the defendants respondents. The learned trial court decreed the suit holding the said two issues in favour of the plaintiff appellant. The defendants respondents being aggrieved filed Title Appeal No.2/2014 and the appeal was allowed dismissing the suit of the plaintiff appellant by holding as follows:
(3.) Thereafter the plaintiff appellant is before this court by filing this second appeal. Mr. Borah submits that the court below more specifically first appellate court was wrong in interpreting the provision u/s 44 of the Transfer of Property Act inasmuch as there is no bar in selling the share of a co-sharer of a joint property and the purchaser as the right to possess to the extent of the sharer who sold the land.