RSA 57/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY The judgment and decree dated 28.09.2010 passed by the learned Civil Judge No.1, Cachar, Silchar in Title Appeal No.16/1998 affirming the judgment and order dat ed 19.03.1998 and the decree dated 24.03.1998 rendered in Title Suit No.53/199 4 constitutes the subject matter of the challenge in the instant appeal. I have heard Mr. N. Dhar, learned counsel for the appellant. For the order proposed to be passed, it is considered inessential to issue forma l notice. The appellants as plaintiffs claiming themselves to be the owners of a plot of land described in schedule- II to the plaint on the basis of the regis tered sale deed No.1710 dated 03.11.1993, instituted the aforementioned suit pra ying for a decree, inter alia for a declaration of their right, title, interest in the suit land as well as for adjudging the sale deeds No.2664 dated 27.12.199 3 and No.310 dated 17.03.1994 void whereby, the defendants Nos.4 & 5 as well as defendants No.1,2 & 3 claimed to have purchased lands located in schedule III & IV of the plaint. The appellants-plaintiffs alleged that on the strength of the illegal purchase which was sans the required the permission of the concerned St ate authority, the aforementioned defendants sought to interfere with their poss ession of the suit land necessitating the institution of the lis. The contesting defendants claimed that the sale deeds were valid in law and that therefore, the suit was liable to be dismissed. They also denied the execution of the sale deed dated 02.11.1993 on the basis of which the plaintiffs-appellant s claimed title in the suit land described in schedule - II in the plaint. The parties adduced evidence, both oral and documentary and eventually the learn ed trial Court by the judgment and order mentioned hereinabove, dismissed the su it. The appeal preferred by the appellants also met the same fate. Issues No.6 & 7 which are of relevance are quoted hereinbelow: (6) Whether the plaintiff has right, title and interest over the schedule I & I I lands ? (7) Whether the sale deed No.2664 dated 27.12.93 and 310 dated 17.3.94 are void illegal, collusive, fraudulent and binding upon the plaintiff ? Both the Courts below decided these issues against the plaintiffs-appellants pri marily on the ground that they could not adduce evidence to prove their case vis -à-vis the same. Mr. Dhar has argued that even assuming that the decision of the learned Courts b elow on Issue No.6 is unassailable, that vis-à-vis Issue No.7 being against the weight of the evidence on record is apparently untenable and is liable to be int erfered with. According to Mr. Dhar, in this view of the matter, the plaintiffs ’ suit as a whole could not have been dismissed. To buttress his contention, the learned counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to the decision contained in the impugned judgment and order qua Issue No. 7. According to Mr. Dhar it would be apparent therefrom that the no objection c ertificate/permission granted to the defendant No.4 & 5 (respondent No.4 & 5 her ein) to purchase the land vide the impugned sale deed No.2664 dated 27.12.93 had been cancelled on 27.09.96 and thus the purchase involved was void in law and t hat to that extent the plaintiffs’ suit ought to have been decreed. I have duly considered the arguments advanced. I have perused as well the plead ings on record as well as the judgment and order impugned in the instant appeal. In view of the stand of the appellants, vis-à-vis the decision pertaining to i ssue No.6, and having regard to the state of the pleadings and the evidence of t he record, no interference therewith is warranted. The evidence of the witnesses of the plaintiffs so far as the issue No.7 is conc erned and as extracted in the text of the decision of the learned lower appellat e Court in that regard discloses that the order dated 27.09.96 had not been prov ed at the trial. Though, it is sought to be contended on behalf of the appellan ts that the said document is a part of the records of the L.T. Case No.50/1993-9 4, in absence of formal proof of the order of cancellation in accordance with la w, it is impermissible to take note of that document and/or the fact. In the above view of the matter, the concurrent finding of the learned Courts be low that the appellants-plaintiffs have failed to prove their case even in issue No.7 cannot be faulted with. The plea that the decision to this effect is agai nst the weight of the evidence on record and is thus perverse, lacks persuasion. The appeal in the above view of the matter lacks in merit and is dismissed. No costs.