RSA 60/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY The judgment and order dated 25.01.2011, rendered by the learned Civil Judge, Dh ubri in Title Appeal No. 65/2008. affirming the judgment dated 30.09.2008 and de cree dated 03.01.2008 passed by the learned Munsiff, Bilasipara in Title Suit No .156/2007 (originally registered as TS No. 582/2003), forms the subject matter o f challenge in the instant appeal. I have heard Mr. TC Khetri, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. AK Hussain, Advocate for the appellants and Mr. DK Das, learned Counsel for the contesting responden t. The respondent/plaintiff instituted the aforementioned suit praying for a decree for declaration of her right, title and interest in the suit land described in Schedule A to the plaint measuring 7 ‰ lechas with the following boundaries: - North - PWD Road; South - Remaining part of the plaintiff’s purchased land; East - Kabejulla & Others; and West - Road & Ahad Ali. Her pleaded case is that the same (suit land) is the northern part of the plot m easuring 2 Kathas and 2 ‰ lechas purchased by her vide sale deeds No. 527 and 33 1 dated 09.02.1994 from Lt. Khabiruddin, the father of the proforma defendants. She traced the title of her vendor abovenamed to one Askar Ali, who had conveyed 3 kathas of land belonging to him vide sale deed No. 2779, dated 18.07.1983 to Khabiruddin. She also claimed mutation in respect of the land and possession the reof by constructing houses on the southern part of it. Alleging that the contes ting defendants/respondents had forcibly trespassed into the suit land on 09.01. 2003, the suit was filed. Therein, additional relief by way of declaration that the sale deed No. 2714 dated 17.12.1997 executed in favour of appellant/defendan t No. 1 is illegal null and void as well as cancellation thereof had also been p rayed for. The contesting defendants/respondents in their joint written statement apart fro m contending that the suit was bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of parties as well as barred by the law of limitation pleaded as follows vis-a-vis the merit of the respondent/plaintiff’s claim : - 5. That, the plaintiff has no rights, title, interest and possession over the s uit land. She is a stranger to the suit-land and as such she has no locus-standi to institute the suit which has no leg to stand on. 6. That, as the plaintiff is a stranger and has no right, title, interest and po ssession over the suit land, so she is not entitled to get any relief in the sui t. It would, thus, be apparent from the above extract that they simply denied the r ight, title, interest in and possession of the respondent/plaintiff in the suit land branding her as a stranger thereto and asserted lack of locus standi to mai ntain the suit. Noticeably, they did not claim purchase of the suit land or any portion thereof. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed a nd evidence was taken on record: - ISSUE 1. Is there any cause of action for the suit? 2. Whether the sale deed No. 2714 dated 17.12.1997 by Group II defendants in fav our of defendant No. 1 is illegal, void and liable to be cancelled? 3. Whether the plaintiff has got right, title and interest over the suit A Sched ule land? 4. Whether the suit is time barred? 5. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary party? 6. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get relief as prayed for? The learned trial Court decreed the suit in full. Being aggrieved, the contesti ng respondents/defendants preferred the aforementioned appeal, which also, by th e impugned judgment and order, has been dismissed. Mr. Khetri has urged vis-a-vis the finding of the learned Lower Appellate Court on issue No. 2 that having regard to the date of the sale deed i.e. 17.12.1997, the prayer for a declaration that the same is null and void made 10 years therea fter, was, apparently barred by law and, therefore, the decree in favour of the respondent/plaintiff to that effect is non est. Contending with reference to Ext . 1/Ext. A, the sale deed, whereby, the appellant/defendant No. 1 purportedly ha d purchased a plot of land measuring 5 lechas, the learned Senior Counsel has ur ged that as it is apparent from the boundaries that the demised plot was located beyond the land measuring 2 ‰ lechas purchased by the respondent/plaintiff, her claim of right, title and interest in respect thereof on the face of the record is misconceived. The learned Courts below having failed to analyse the attendan t facts in the correct perspective, the findings in favour of the respondent/pla intiff sustaining her right, title and interest in the suit land as described in the plaint is patently illegal, thus, vitiating the impugned judgment and order , he urged. Mr. Das, in reply has argued that it being apparent on a comparison of the bound aries of the sale deeds of the parties that the plea of the respondents/contesti ng defendants are belied by the materials on record, the concurrent findings of facts recorded by the learned Court below, on an appropriate appreciation of the pleadings and evidence ought not to be interfered with. I have considered the materials on record as well as the arguments advanced. The respondent/plaintiff in her plaint, while claiming the purchase of the land mea suring 2 kathas 2 ‰ lechas from Lt. Khabiruddin, in categorical terms pleaded th at the cause of action of the suit had arisen, amongst others, on 01.11.2003 and 09.11.2003, the dates on which the contesting defendants attempted to disposses s her from the suit land as well as on 12.12.2003 i.e. the date of her knowledge of the sale purportedly effected vide the sale deed No. 2714, dated 17.12.1997. A perusal of the written statement filed by the contesting defendants discloses that not only they abstained from asserting the purchase vide the sale deed date d 17.12.1997, no denial of the above averments vis-a-vis the dates of cause of a ction for the suit was made. In that view of the matter, having regard to Articl e 58 in the Schedule of the Limitation Act, 1963, the plea of the bar of limitat ion for a declaration that the sale deed dated 17.12.1997 is void lacks persuasi on. The sale of the land measuring 2 kathas 2 ‰ lechas by Lt. Khabiruddin in favour of the respondent/plaintiff vide sale deed No. 527 and 331, dated 09.02.1994 is earlier than 17.12.1997, the date on which, the contesting defendants claimed to have purchased land measuring 5 lechas from Kabijan Bewa. There is nothing to i ndicate that the subject of the latter transaction was included within this plot of the area of 2 kathas 2 ‰ lechas. The boundaries of the three sale deeds also confirm this determination. The evidence of PW 1, the respondent/plaintiff is t hat following a series of sales by Askar Ali, his successors in interest Mst. Be wa and Azizul Haque had no land left to sell in favour of the appellant/defendan t No. 1 by the sale deed dated 17.12.1997. In this view of the matter, the conte ntion of the contesting defendants that the respondent/plaintiff had illegally a nd for unlawful gain shown the land purchased by them to be included in the suit land is not borne out by the records. In absence of any averments to that effec t in the written statement and in the face of the omission on their part to prov ide the factual details pertaining to their purchase of the land vide the sale d eed dated 17.12.1997, the pleas now taken before this Court do not merit conside ration. The learned Courts below, as the judgments and orders reveal, have arriv ed at findings in support of the respondent/plaintiff’s claim of right, tile and interest in the suit. In the exercise of this Court’s power under section 100 o f the Civil Procedure Code, in absence of any apparent illegality, no interferen ce is called for. The appeal lacks in merit and is dismissed. No costs.