Phukan, J. — This is an appeal by the defendants. The respondent as plaintiff, filed the suit being Title Suit No. 64/68 btfore the learned Assistant District Judge, Cachar for recovery of khas possession of land measuring an area of 3 hal, 9 kedar, 5 josthi, 1 rekh 16 gandas, as described in the schedule to the plaint, after declaration of his occupancy right and by evicting the defendants. In the alternative, the plaintiff-respondent prayed for a decree for Rs. 9000/- against the pro-defendant No. 12 if during trial it was found that the said pro-defendants had no occupancy right to the suit land. The main ground on which the plaintiff-respondent prayed for decree was on the basis of a sale deed ( Exhibit-9 ) executed on 11.4.68 by pro-defendant No. 12 by which the suit land was sold. 2. As the pro-defendant No. 12 contested the suit he shall no longer be considered as pro-defendant and herein after he shall be referred to as defendant No. 12. 3. There is no dispute that originally the suit land formed part of the Zamindari Estate and subsequently acquired by the State under the provisions of Assam State Acquisition of Zamindar Act, 1951. The defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 5 have taken the plea that since 1950 they are in possession of the suit land as tenant by paying rent to the Zamindarini and as such have acquired occupancy tenancy. Even after acquisition of the said Zamindari the above defendants paid land revenue to the Manager of the acquired Estate. According to the above defendants, the defendant No. 12 was the Manager of the said Zamindari Estate and after abolition he has joined legal profession and is a practising lawyer at Karimganj. The defendants have averred that the defendant No. 12 by exerting his influence got his name mutated in the revenue records as an occupancy tenant and taking advantage of the said entry, he sold the land to the plaintiff-respondent. Objection was filed regarding mutation of the name of the defendant No. 12 in the said records which is still pending. 4. According to defendant No. 12 he obtained settlement of the land by virtue of a verbal agreement and thereafter he is possessing the land by cultivating the same through labourers. He has admitted that he sold the land for consideration of Rs. 9,000/- to the plaintiff-respondent. 4. According to defendant No. 12 he obtained settlement of the land by virtue of a verbal agreement and thereafter he is possessing the land by cultivating the same through labourers. He has admitted that he sold the land for consideration of Rs. 9,000/- to the plaintiff-respondent. He has denied that the contesting defendants got settlement from the earstwhile zamindarini or from any other party. 5. On pleadings the following issues were framed : 1. Has the plaintiff any cause of action ? 2. Is the suit maintainable in its present form ? 3. Is the suit barred by estoppel, acquiescence and waiver ? 4. Is the suit barred by limitation ? 5. Is the suit bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of parties ? 6. Had the defendant No. 12 any right, title and interest in the suit land ? 7. Has the plaintiff acquired any right, title or interest in the suit land by his alleged purchase from defendant No. 12 ? 8. Has the suit land been correctly described in the plaint ? 9. Is the story of possession and dispossession as alleged in the plaint true ? 10. Has the plaintiff any right, title or interest in the suit land ? 11. Is the plaintiff entitled to any compensation as claimed in this suit ? 12. Is the claim for compensation excessive ? 13. To what relief, if any, is the plaintiff entitled f 6. The main points for consideration of this appeal are whether the defendant No. 12. acquired any occupancy right, title and interest over the suit land and whether the plaintiff-respondent acquired any such right by virtue of the sale deed, Exhibit-9. These two questions have been decided against the present appellant by the learned trial Court while disposing of Issues Nos. 6 and 7. 7. We have perused the impugned judgment and find that while deciding Issues Nos. 6 and 7 the learned trial Court did not at all consider the plea raised by the appellant. In deciding the above issues the learned trial Court heavily relied on the evidence of Sukhamay,P.W.5 who was 'Nayab' of Zamindari to come to the finding that the defendant No. 12. got settlement of the land from the ex-Zamindarini. 8. 6 and 7 the learned trial Court did not at all consider the plea raised by the appellant. In deciding the above issues the learned trial Court heavily relied on the evidence of Sukhamay,P.W.5 who was 'Nayab' of Zamindari to come to the finding that the defendant No. 12. got settlement of the land from the ex-Zamindarini. 8. In the plaint, it has been specifically stated that after execution of the sale deed, Exhibit-9 the defendant No. 12 did not take any step for delivery of possession of the land to the plaintiff. However, evidence has been adduced on behalf of the plaintiff-respondent to show that possession of the suit land after sale was delivered. In view of the settled law that the parties cannot go beyond their pleadings, we are unable to consider the evidence adduced on behalf of the plaintiff to, show that the possession was delivered by defendant No. 12 after sale of the land. In the sale deed, Exhibit-9, there is a clear statement that the defendant No. 12 handed over the documents to the plaintiff-respondent in respect of the land, but no document has been produced before the trial Court. In fact the plaintiff (P.W.I) has admitted in cross examination that the defendant No. 12 did not give any Kabuliyat or rent receipts issued by the Zamindarini. He has also admitted that he did not see the revenue records in the office of the Zamindarini to ascertain whether the defendant No. 12 got any occupancy right over the land. From the evidence of Narayan, P.W. 3, who was a clerk in the office of the Tahsil, we find that a tauzi was opened for defendant No. 12 on the orders passed by the Manager of the Acquired Estate. In other words the defendant No. 12 got his name mutated as tenant after the Estate was acquired by the State, which is the case of the defendant. He has admitted that he did not know whether defendant No. 12 got any settlement under the Zamindarini before the Estate was acquired. He has also admitted that revenue records kept by the Zamindarini were not handed over. Anil Das, P. W. 4. is a Survey - Commissioner and he has stated that the entry in the revenue records was in favour of the contesting defendants. He has also admitted that revenue records kept by the Zamindarini were not handed over. Anil Das, P. W. 4. is a Survey - Commissioner and he has stated that the entry in the revenue records was in favour of the contesting defendants. From the evidence of Sukhamay, P. W. 5, on whose evidence the learned trial Court heavily relied, we find that he has categorically stated that the land was not recorded in the revenue records of the Zamindarini in favour of the defendant No. 12. Though this witness has tried to explain the fact of non-recording by stating that as defendant No. 12 had land, elsewhere, his name was not recorded in respect of the present suit land, we are unable to accept his explanation In cross-examination he has categorically stated that defendant No. 12 did not pay any rent. He has also further stated that he did not know about the possession of the suit land. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the defendant No, 12 has failed to prove that he occupied the suit land under the erstwhile Zamindarini as a tenant by paying revenue. Defendant No. 12 examined him­self before the learned trial Court as witness No, 6. He admitted that though he was the Manager of the Zamindarini he had no power of attorney and that he took settlement of the land from one Harendra Cboudhury in the year 1362 B. S.=1965 A. D. on a verbal agreement. So the settlement was after the Act for acquisition of Zamindari Estate came into force. He has also admitted that he did not pay the rent, but the same rent was deducted from his salary ; such deduction has not been proved. 9. In absence of any document regarding settlement of land including rent receipts we are unable to accept the finding of the learned lower Court that the pro-defendant No. 12 acquired occupancy right over the suit land and as such the said finding is liable to be set aside which we hereby do, 10. From the judgment of the learned trial Court we find the defen­dant No. 12 took the plea that he cultivated the land through labourers, But during trial this stand was shifted and plea was that the land was cultivated by defendant No. 12 through Rajadhar Das, P. W. 2. From the judgment of the learned trial Court we find the defen­dant No. 12 took the plea that he cultivated the land through labourers, But during trial this stand was shifted and plea was that the land was cultivated by defendant No. 12 through Rajadhar Das, P. W. 2. Even .Rajadhar Das has admitted that he did not cultivate the entire land but cultivated 2,1/2 hal. We are unable to accept this plea that defendant No. 12..cultivated the land through Rajadhar Das and in our opinion it was an after thought. 11. - On the other hand, defendant No. 1 deposed that after Coming to Karimganj as refugee in the year 1950 A,D. the defendant took settlement of the land, which was lying waste, from the Zamindarini and he has further stated that after acquisition by State they paid rent to the Government. Exhibit ka, kha and ga series are the rent receipts. Defendant No, 12 declined to cross examine the witness, thereby accepted the statement made by the defendant No. 1 on oath. Defendants have-examined Nanda Kumar D.W. 2, Arabika D.W. 3, and Ramlal P-W. 4, to prove that they were in possession of the suit land for a long time. The above witnesses are residing near the suit land and we find no reason to disbelieve them. Defendants are cultivators and according to evidence they are cultivating the lands themselves whereas defendant No. 12 is educated person and at present is a practicing lawyer at Karimganj, In view of the above facts and circumstances we hold that the defendants 1, 2 and 5 got occupation of the land by paying rent to ex-Zamindarini and thereafter they are possessing the land as occupancy tenant. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the above defendants have a better title in the suitland. 12. The very fact that in the alternative the plaintiff has prayed for a decree for refund of consideration for the sale of the land from the defendant No.12, would also go to show that the plaintiff had doubt about the title of the defendant No. 12. 13. From what has been stated above we hold that the defendants No. 12 did not acquire any right, title and interest over the suit land as occupancy tenant and as such the plaintiff cannot claim any such right over the land by virtue of the sale deed, Exhibit-9. 13. From what has been stated above we hold that the defendants No. 12 did not acquire any right, title and interest over the suit land as occupancy tenant and as such the plaintiff cannot claim any such right over the land by virtue of the sale deed, Exhibit-9. We further hold that the defendants 1, 2 and 5 have acquired occupancy right over the suit land. As defendant No. 12 has admitted receipt of the consideration money for the sale in favour of the plaintiff, we hold that the plain tiff-respond ant is entitled to a decree for refund Rs. 9,000/-being the consideration for the sale. As the plaintiff did not claim any interest} he is not entitled to any interest on the said sum of Rs. 9,000/- 14. In the result the decree of the learned trial Court regarding declaration of right, title and interest as occupancy right in respect of the suit land is set aside and the plaintiff respondent shall not be entitled to get possession of the suit land. The suit is however, decreed against defendant No. 12 for recovery of a sum of Rs. 9,000/- 15. In the result, the appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above and decree accordingly stands modified. Parties to bear their own costs.