RSA 182/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.P.KATAKEY Heard Mr RP Sarmah, learned senior counsel for the petitioners. This appeal by the defendant is against the concurrent finding of fact r ecorded by learned Courts below. The respondent/plaintiff instituted Title Suit No.28/2002 in the Court o f learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) No.1 (now Munsiff), Dibrugarh against th e present appellants/defendants praying for declaration of right, title and inte rest as well as for recovery of khas possession over a plot of land measuring 4B ighas 3Kathas 10Lechas comprised in Dag No.279, covered by annual patta No.50 of Lezai Miri Gaon under Larua Mouza, P.S. Barbaruah in the district of Dibrugarh, Assam, contending interalia that annual patta in respect of the suit land was i ssued in favour of his father Lankeswar Taye and on whose death it was inherited by him, but he was forcibly dispossessed from the said land by the defendants, on 17th January 1999, which necessitated filing of suit. The defendants contested the suit by filing written statement contending interal ia that the suit land was under occupation of their predecessor-in-interest Rupa dhar Taye and neither the plaintiff nor his father possessed the said land. It i s also contended that the land in question is not covered by any annual patta, b ut is a Government khas land. The defendants also filed counter-claim for declar ation of their right, title and interest in respect of the land, however, with d ifferent boundaries, on the ground of adverse possession. The learned trial Court, on the basis of the pleadings, formulated the f ollowing issues for consideration and decision: 1. Whether the suit is maintainable in law and facts? 2. Whether the plaintiff has right to sue? 3. Whether the suit is barred by law of Limitation? 4. Whether the defendants are illegally occupying the suit land? 5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree prayed for? 6. To what relief or reliefs to the plaintiffs is entitled to? Additional issues 7. Whether the defendants are entitled to decree as prayed in the counter claim? The respondent/plaintiff, in support of his claim, examined as many as 5 witnesses while the appellants/defendants examined 4 witnesses. The learned trial Court, upon appreciation of the evidences on record ad duced and upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, decreed the suit vide ju dgment dated 22nd March 2005. Being aggrieved, the present appellant/plaintiff p referred Title Appeal No.17/2005 in the Court of Civil Judge, Dibrugarh which ha s however been dismissed vide judgment dated 26th February 2010, and hence the p resent appeal. It is contended by learned senior counsel for the appellants that the qu estion whether the suit land is Government land or annual patta land has not bee n decided by any of the Courts below, though the plea that it is Government land was taken by the defendants in their written statement. It is also contended th at the description of the suit land given in the plaint by the plaintiff and the one given in the counter-claim by the defendants is different, which aspect of the matter has also not been considered. It appears from the discussion by learned trial Court against issue No.4 that evidences on record are discussed. The learned trial Court, on considerati on of the oral and documentary evidences, more particularly Ext.7(annual patta i ssued in favour of the plaintiff’s father), Ext.1 to 6(revenue paying receipts i n respect of the suit land) and Ext.8(Certificate issued by Circle Officer), rec orded a finding of fact that the suit land is covered by annual patta issued in favour of Lankeswar Taye, the father of the plaintiff and the same is still subs isting, having not been cancelled. The finding of fact has also been recorded by learned trial Court that the land, therefore, is not Government land. The said finding of fact has been concurred by learned appellate Court in the judgment pa ssed. The further contention of learned senior counsel is that the land descri bed by the plaintiff in the plaint over which right, title and interest was clai med and the land described by the defendants in their counter-claim is different , which aspect of the matter has not been gone into. It appears from the findings recorded that the learned Courts below that having found that the suit land described in the plaint is covered by annual patta, in itially issued in favour of the plaintiff’s father, the claim of the defendants that the description of the suit land has been given in the plaint wrongly has b een rejected. That apart, it is the case of the defendants that they are possess ing the suit land, without in fact challenging the identity of the land as descr ibed in the schedule to the plaint. In view of the above, I am of the view that no substantial question of l aw is involved in the present appeal to admit the same, and hence it is dismisse d. No costs.