RSA 149/2011 BEFORE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MADAN B LOKUR The appellants claim that substantial questions of law arise in this regular sec ond appeal. A case was filed by the respondents being T.S. 1/2001. The title suit wa s for a declaration that the respondent had right, title and interest in the sui t property described in Schedule ’A’, ’B’ and ’D’ of the plaint. The respondents /plaintiffs also claimed possession of the suit property by eviction of the defe ndants/tenants/ appellants before me. According to the respondents, since the appellants were found to be in a deplorable condition when they came from Bangladesh in the year 1977, they were allowed to cultivate the land of the respondent. They and their associates cult ivated the respondents land. According to the appellants, they were tenants in the suit property. On these broad pleadings, the Trial Court framed the following issues:- 1. Is there any cause of action for the suit? 2. Is the suit maintainable? 3. Whether the plaintiffs have right, title, interest over the suit land? 4. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to get the decree as prayed for? 5. To what relief/reliefs parties are entitled? On a consideration of the evidence on record, the learned Trial Court found all the issues in favour of the respondents and accordingly decreed the suit by a ju dgment and decree dated 5/12/2002. Feeling aggrieved, the appellants preferred a first appeal before the District J udge, Hailakandi, and this was registered as Title Appeal 37/2006. The appellate court took into consideration the evidence on record and noted that the respond ents have been able to produce documentary evidence in support of the plea that they purchased the suit property by jote right and also by purchase of maliki ri ght in the suit land. I find that the appellants were not able to produce any evidence what so ever in support of the claim of tenancy. Accordingly, by a judgment and order dated 28/ 4/2011, the first appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed. As mentioned above, the appellants claim in this second appeal that some substan tial