RSA 301/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY The judgment and order dated 23.08.2010, passed by the learned Civil Judge No. 2 , Kamrup, Guwahati in Title Appeal No.12/2008, dismissing the same, forms the su bject matter of challenge in the instant appeal under section 100 of the Civil P rocedure Code (for short hereafter referred to as the Code). I have heard Mr. GN Sahewalla, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. M Talukdar, Advoc ate for the appellants and Mr. BD Deka, learned counsel for the respondents. The rival pleadings in bare essential would be necessary to comprehend the argum ents advanced. The present appellants as plaintiffs instituted Title Appeal No. 285/1991 in the Court of the then learned Munsiff No. 1, Kamrup, Guwahati agains t the respondents herein including Mrs. Junu Gogoi, respondent No.4 for declarat ion of their right, title and interest over the suit land described in the Sched ule to the plaint claiming that they have been possessing the same since the lif e time of their father Lt. Kasta Mikir. The immediate cause of action of the sui t, according to them, was the unlawful attempts made on the part of the responde nts to dispossess them from the suit land. The respondents while contesting the suit, pleaded that the suit land originally belonged to Lt. Dalimi Mikirani, who conveyed the same to one Nagen Hazarika by executing three registered sale deeds, whereafter, Ms. Junu Gogoi purchased 1 b igha 1 katha and 6 lechas from the said Nagen Hazarika on 12.09.1989 and since t hen, she had been occupying the same (suit land). The learned trial Court after framing the issues on the pleadings of the parties and on a scrutiny of the evidence on record, dismissed the suit of the appellan ts. Being aggrieved, they took the fight in TA No. 51/2002 in the court of the l earned Civil Judge, Kamrup. The appeal was allowed with a direction to frame thr ee additional issues. Being dissatisfied with this determination, the respondent s approached this Court with CRP No. 12/2007, which was disposed of on 12.02.200 7 by interfering with the judgment of the first Appellate Court and a direction was issued to frame the additional issue, whether the defendants have acquired any right, title and interest over the suit premises to dispossess the plaintiff therefrom? . The learned first Appellate Court on a denovo consideration of the materials on records dismissed the appeal. As a result, the decree of the learned trial Court dismissing the suit was sustained. Mr. Sahewalla with particular reference to the decision recorded by the learned first Appellate Court vis-a-vis the additional issue, issue No. 7, has argued th at as the respondents/plaintiffs have been in continuous and uninterrupted posse ssion of the suit land over the years, the finding of the first Appellate Court in favour of the title of Ms. Junu Gogoi, respondent No. 4 on the basis of purpo rted sale made by Nagen Hazarika in her favour is not only against the weight of the evidence on record, but also is opposed to the fundamental principle of law pertaining to title and possession of an immovable property. According to him, the sales in successions claimed to have been made by Dalimi Mikirani and Nagen Hazarika so as to vest title in Ms. Junu Gogoi having been denied by the appella nts, the learned Lower Appellate Court apparently fell in error in dismissing th e appeal. Mr. Deka, on the other hand, has argued that as at no point of time, the appella nts had in express terms denied either the aforementioned sales or the validity thereof, their mere claim of possession of the suit land ipso facto would not ve st them with any unassailable title and, thus, having regard to the reasons reco rded in the decision on the issue No. 7, no interference with the impugned judgm ent and order is called for. The pleadings on record and the judgments rendered by the learned Courts below h ave been duly perused. The impugned judgment and order discloses that the learne d Lower Appellate Court had held in favour of the title of Mrs. Junu Gogoi, resp ondent No. 4 vis-a-vis suit land on the following grounds: - i) Ms. Dalimi Mikirani had conveyed the suit land in favour of the Nagen Hazarik a by three deeds, Ext. Cha, Unga and Gha proved by the respondent No. 2. ii) The land involved had been sold by Sri Nagen Hazarika in favour of Junu Gogo i vide Ext. Ka. iii) The plea of invalidity of the sale deeds on the ground of impermissibility of sale of lands covered by tribal belt had not been taken up before this Court in the earlier round of litigation. iv) The appellants had never disputed the execution of the sale deed by Sri Nage n Hazarika in favour of Mrs. Junu Gogoi, respondent No. 4. v) The sale of land in favour of Ms. Junu Gogoi is covered by section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. On being queried by this Court, the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants ha ve not been able to convincingly contend that the above findings are incorrect o n facts. He, however, assiduously maintained that in view of the continuous poss ession of the suit land by the appellants, the above findings are unsustainable in law. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on a consideration of the m aterials on record, this Court is of the unhesitant opinion that the conclusion reached by the learned Lower Appellate Court as recited hereinabove, does not su ffer from any legal infirmity warranting interference therewith. In absence of a ny pleaded stand of the appellants against the validity of the sales referred to hereinabove, the claim of continuous possession of the suit land per se is not enough to dislodge the title therein as vested in the respondents by the said tr ansaction. There is nothing on record to demonstrate that the appellant had set up and proved any plea of adverse possession against Mrs. Junu Gogoi and the ot her respondents so as to denude them of their title so acquired by them on the b asis of the sale transactions otherwise proved. In the above view of the matter, the appeal lacks in merit and is dismissed. No costs.