Judgement This Second Appeal is directed against the Judgment and Decree dated 16-5-1994 passed by the Learned Assistant District Judge, Jorhat in Title Appeal No. 9 of 1991 whereby the Judgment and Decree passed in Title Suit No. 54 of 1990 by the Learned Munsiff No. 2, Jorhat was reversed and the Title Suit filed by the appellant was dismissed. 2. This appeal was admitted on 30-8-1994 for determination of the following question of law :- "Whether the learned Lower Appellate Court was right in law in rejecting the documents of title of the plaintiff-appellant issued by the Revenue Authority in the Revenue Sale under the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation 1886." 3. I have heard Mr. D. C. Mahanta, learned senior counsel assisted by Shri D. Das and Shri T. J. Mahanta, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri W. K. Baishya, learned counsel for the respondent. 4. The plaintiff/appellant filed the aforesaid suit for declaration of his right, title and interest over the suit land and for recovery of possession. His case as is revealed in the plaint is that he had purchased a plot of land measuring 1 Katha 4 Lechas appertaining to Dag No. 1263 of Periodic Patta No. 181 in Block No. 6 of Jorhat town in Land Sale Case No. 544 of 1975-76. According to him the said land was sold in auction for recovery of arrears of land revenue. The sale was duly confirmed and a sale certificate was accordingly issued on 11-2-76 certifying that the purchase took effect on the 5th day of November, 1975. After confirmation of the sale, the plaintiff/appellant was also put in possession of the disputed land by the revenue staff on 30-4-78. The plaintiff also got his name mutated in the revenue records. After taking over possession, the plaintiff/appellant encircled the said land with bamboo fencing. On 1-5-90, the plaintiff/appellant noticed that the defendant was removing the boundary fencing and some labourers engaged by him were busy in construction of a house on the suit land. On objection having been raised, the defendant/respondent assured him that he would vacate the land after effecting a survey by the revenue staff provided the land does not appertain to his patta. Despite assurance as above, the defendant/respondent did not vacate the suit land and continued with the possession without having any title over the suit land. 5. On objection having been raised, the defendant/respondent assured him that he would vacate the land after effecting a survey by the revenue staff provided the land does not appertain to his patta. Despite assurance as above, the defendant/respondent did not vacate the suit land and continued with the possession without having any title over the suit land. 5. Apart from objections on technicalities of law the defendant in his written statement submitted that he had purchased land measuring 1 Bigha out of 3 Bighas 121/2 Lechas of Dag No. 1261 of Periodic Patta No. 290 of Block No. 6 of Jorhat town by registered sale deed executed on 27-8-65 by the original owner with possession thereof and subsequently he also purchased another plot of land measuring 3 Kathas 4 Lechas contiguous to the above purchased land by another registered sale deed executed on 12-6-70, with delivery of possession. The original owner of Dag No. 1261 of Periodic Patta No. 290 sold away his entire land in this dag measuring 5 Bighas 1 Katha and 5 Lechas to different persons including a path measuring 16 feet in breadth, running east to west. According to him, the suit land falls within this path. It is further averred that there was no delivery of possession to the plaintiff of any land after alleged purchase in auction and, therefore, there was no occasion for dispossession of the plaintiff/appellant from the suit land. Defendants specific case before the learned trial Court was that the records relating to the auction sale and delivery of possession are fraudulent and deceptive. 6. The learned trial Court, on consideration of the pleadings of the respective parties, framed the following issues : (1) Is there any cause of action for the suit? (2) Whether the suit is under valued and is liable to be dismissed for non payment of proper Court fees? (3) Whether the suit is bad for non joinder of necessary party? (4) Whether the plaintiff has right, title and interest over the suit land? (5) Whether the defendant illegally trespassed into the suit land after removing the boundary fencing and started to construct building over the suit land? (6) Whether the suit is barred by the principles of estoppel, waiver and acquiscence? (7) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree as prayed for? (8) To what other relief the parties are entitled? 7. (5) Whether the defendant illegally trespassed into the suit land after removing the boundary fencing and started to construct building over the suit land? (6) Whether the suit is barred by the principles of estoppel, waiver and acquiscence? (7) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree as prayed for? (8) To what other relief the parties are entitled? 7. The learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) dealt with the question of title in details and on perusal of Exhibit 3, a certificate issued by the Deputy Commissioner, came to the conclusion that the plaintiff was put in possession of the suit land after purchase. The learned first appellate Court, however, recorded his dissent with the above conclusion primarily on consideration of the evidence of the plaintiff/appellant. 8. Mr. D. C. Mahanta, learned senior counsel submitted that the documents of title i.e. Ext. 1, 2, 3 and 4 were not taken into consideration by the learned first appellate Court and this has misdirected the decision with regard to the claim of title by the plaintiff. Had the documents been, the learned counsel argued, interpreted in its proper perspective, there would have been no occasion for reversal of the judgment of the learned Trial Court. 9. The findings of the Courts below are not concurrent so far the question of title is concerned. The appellate Court dealt with the documents relating to title in para 6 of the impugned judgment. The discussion does not seem to be complete so far it relates to Ext. 3, the document relied upon by the appellant as proof of delivery of possession after auction purchase. 10. In order to appreciate the rival contentions, it is necessary to have a look at the documents exhibited by the plaintiff/appellant. Exhibit 2 is a certificate dated 11-2-76 issued for and on behalf of the Deputy Commissioner, Jorhat. It reads as follows : "Certificate of purchased defaulting Estate under the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation : Certified that Shri Khogeswar Bhuyan son of Shri Cheniram Bhuyan, Khongia mouza Dhekelia Gaon has purchased, under the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation for a sum of Rs. 150/- (one hundred fifty) only, the estate mentioned below in the District of Sibsagar Jorhat Sub division and his purchase took effect on the 5th day of November 1975. Sd/- Deputy Commissions Sibsagar, Jorhat. 11. Exhibit 3 is another certificate issued by the same authority. 150/- (one hundred fifty) only, the estate mentioned below in the District of Sibsagar Jorhat Sub division and his purchase took effect on the 5th day of November 1975. Sd/- Deputy Commissions Sibsagar, Jorhat. 11. Exhibit 3 is another certificate issued by the same authority. The document is quoted below for ready reference : "CERTIFICATE OF PURCHASE OF DEFAULTING ESTATE UNDER THE ASSAM LAND REVENUE REGULATION Land Sale Case No. 544/75-76 Hereby certify that Sri Khogeswar Bhuyan, R/O Dhekelia Gaon Khongia Mouza has purchased, under the Assam Land Revenue Regulation for the sum of Rs. 150/- the Estate (or share of the Estate) mentioned below in the district of Sibsagar, Jorhat (Assam) and that his purchase took effect on the 5th day of Nov. 1975. Sd/- for Deputy Commissioner, Sibsagar, Jorhat. SPECIFICATION (If of entire Estate) Touzi number. P.P. No. 181 Block No. 6, Jorhat town Name and also of Estate OB-1K-4L Name of former proprietor or direct settlement holder is Dhorweswar Koibarta ...... MEMO NO JRLS/P.544/75-76 Dated 28/3/78 Copy to : 1) Shri B Bharali, Asstt. Nazir for delivery of possession by 30/4/78 and report. 2) The Sub Deputy Collector, Jorhat for deputing the lot Mondal on requisition by The Asstt. Nazir, for pointing out boundaries. Sd/- for Deputy Commissioner, Sibsagar, Jorhat." 12. Exhibit-1 is the copy of Jamabandi which shows that the name of the plaintiff was mutated in the revenue records in pursuance of an order passed on 7-7-76. Ext.4 series are the copies of challans showing payment of land revenue by the appellant. There is no evidence to show that mutation was effected with notice to the defendant/respondent. Therefore, mutation and payment of revenue are practically of no importance in this case. The dispute centres around the question whether the appellant/auction-purchaser was delivered with the possession of the suit land. 13. The appellant in his evidence has claimed to have purchased the suit land in Auction Sale Case No. 544/75-76. Ext. 2 and 3 quoted above, although issued on different dates, are basically same in its contents except that Ext.3, issued on 28-3-1978 also required the Asstt. Nazir to deliver possession of the land by 30-4-1978 and to submit report. The learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) after perusal of Ext.3 came to the conclusion that delivery of the land was effected on 30-4-1978. But this document cannot be treated as a certificate of delivery of possession. Nazir to deliver possession of the land by 30-4-1978 and to submit report. The learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) after perusal of Ext.3 came to the conclusion that delivery of the land was effected on 30-4-1978. But this document cannot be treated as a certificate of delivery of possession. There is nothing on record to show that the Asstt. Nazir had complied with the above direction. The plaintiff in his statement on oath specified that Ext.3 is the document relating to delivery of possession. After due consideration of this document, I am unable to endorse the view of the learned Trial Court that Ext.3 is the proof of delivery of possession on 30-4-1978. It was the burden on the plaintiff-appellant to prove that the revenue officials had effected delivery of possession of the land after sale in auction. The oral statement read with the documents on record, specially Ext.3, show that he has utterly failed to discharge this burden.This document (Ext.3), under no circumstance can be construed to be a document of proof of delivery of possession. The learned trial judge has obviously committed a grave error in coming to the conclusion that the possession of the suit land was delivered on 30-4-1978. The learned first appellate Court has also overlooked this aspect and on consideration of the evidence from a different angle dismissed the suit. 14. Besides, the Courts below failed to take note of an important aspect of the case relating to limitation. It would appear that the written statement filed by the respondent is also silent on the question of limitation. From Ext.2 and 3 we find that the sale became effective w.e.f. 5-11-1975. There being no proof that the plaintiff was delivered with possession his plea of dis-possession in the month of May, 1990 is of no consequence. Mutation of his name in the revenue record in the year 1976 and payment of land revenue will not change the feature of this case so far the question of limitation is involved. The limitation apparently started w.e.f. 5-11-1975.This is the date when the sale became effective. This suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession was filed on 31-8-1990. No doubt, the suit was filed up long after the period of limitation i.e. 12 years, if counted from 5-11-1975. The limitation apparently started w.e.f. 5-11-1975.This is the date when the sale became effective. This suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession was filed on 31-8-1990. No doubt, the suit was filed up long after the period of limitation i.e. 12 years, if counted from 5-11-1975. Even if we compute the period of limitation from the date of mutation, the suit appears to be barred. Section 3 of the Limitation Act of 1963 provides that every suit instituted, appeal preferred and application made after the prescribed period shall be dismissed, subject of course to the provisions of Sec. 4 to 24, even if limitation has not been set up as a defence. This suit was filed for recovery of possession on the basis of title and alleged dis-possession. The learned first appellate Court in the impugned judgment came to the finding that there was no cause of action for the suit as alleged in the plaint. I do not find any scope to disagree with the finding of the first appellate Court. This is because apart from lack of documentary proof of delivery of possession, the plaintiff in his evidence could not display his familiarity with the surroundings of the suit land which alternately suggests that he had never possessed the same. Non-examination of any independent witness from the locality to evince his possession for the period prior to May, 1990 also goes adverse to his case. The appellant has utterly failed to establish that he was in possession of the land. Therefore, this suit filed for recovery of possession on the basis of title is barred by limitation and ought not to have been decreed by the learned Trial Court. 15. There is no dispute that non-consideration of the documents of title is a substantial question of law. Failure to do the same will undoubtedly result in miscarriage of justice. But for the discusions made here-in-before, there seems to be no justification for entertaining this second appeal. Under no circumstance the order of dismissal of the suit passed by the learned appellate Court is liable to be reversed, Hence, I propose to dismiss this appeal. In the result the appeal is dismissed. No costs. Appeal dismissed.