J.N. SARMA, J. — This appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 12.4.1999 passed by the Civil Judge (Sr. Division) No.1, Cachar at Silchar in Title Suit No. 15/1980. By the aforesaid judgment the learned Judge decreed the suit. It may be stated herein that earlier the suit was dismissed by the Assistant District Judge No.1 by judgment dated 9.12.88 holding that there was no cause of action and the suit is premature. Against that judgment and decree, a first appeal being First Appeal No. 34/89 was filed before this Court and this Court on 6.11.95 set aside the finding on issue No. 1 and remanded the matter to the trial Court for fresh disposal. Thereafter the present judgment in appeal was passed. The issue No.1 which was decided earlier by the trial Court reads as follows : Is there any cause of action for the suit? 2. The suit was filed by as many as 17 plaintiffs against the Silchar Municipality, the present appellant. The suit was for declaration of right, title and interest of the plaintiffs in respect of the land described in the schedule known as Narsingtola Tank and further declaration that the registered agreement between the plaintiffs' predecessor-in-interest and the defendant is inoperative, stale, ineffective and void and has been cancelled and for further declaration that it has been cancelled and the defendant has no right or authority further to continue control, possession and management of the same. There was also a prayer for recovery of possession by removing the defendant and any person claiming under them and for restoration of the same to its original position. There was also a prayer for compensation. 3. The facts as stated in the plaint are as follows : (a) That the plaintiffs are the owners of the Narsingtola Tank and land around it specifically described in the schedule and situated within the Silchar town. They are the recorded proprietors of the tank and land and paying the land revenue to the Government. Silchar Municipality took over the said tank and the land around it under an agree-ment in the year 1898 between the then owner (previously Ramdas Banerjee), later Dinamoni Dashi and Municipality took the management and control of the tank and it was reserved mainly for the supply of drinking water to the neighbouring residents and an area of 50 ft. Silchar Municipality took over the said tank and the land around it under an agree-ment in the year 1898 between the then owner (previously Ramdas Banerjee), later Dinamoni Dashi and Municipality took the management and control of the tank and it was reserved mainly for the supply of drinking water to the neighbouring residents and an area of 50 ft. width around it was reserved for keeping the tank free from any build-ing or any other incidence which might pollute the drinking water reserved in the tank. (b) It is the case of the plaintiffs that an agreement in the year 1898 long came to an end as the very purpose of the reserving the tank for drinking purpose is over and the plaintiffs claimed that the Municipality is liable to deliver the possession of the tank and the land around it to the actual owners. (c) The plaintiffs made demands to the Municipality and stated that the agreement has been cancelled and has be-come inoperative but the possession of the tank and the land around it was not delivered to the plaintiffs. (d) The plaintiffs state that the agreement did not vest any permanent right on the Municipality and the sole purpose of the agreement was to supply of drinking water and as such when that purpose came to an end automatically the right, title and interest of the plain-tiffs was come back to them. It is the further case of the plaintiffs that the predecessor of the plaintiffs got the suit land alongwith other lands by a purchase from the proprietor Dinamoni Dashi by a Registered Deed of sale dated 32nd Jaistha 1310 B.S. for valuable consideration and thus acquired proprietary right with possession over the suit land and got also mutation. (e) That the Hindu considers it to be religious act to supply drinking water to the public and it was this which inspires the predecessor of the plaintiffs to enter into an agreement with the Municipality in respect of the tank for supply of drinking water. (f) That in the year 1993 the Municipality in violation of the terms of the agreement tried to construct a building for library on the Southern bank of the tank within 50 ft. area of the reserved land. (f) That in the year 1993 the Municipality in violation of the terms of the agreement tried to construct a building for library on the Southern bank of the tank within 50 ft. area of the reserved land. This led to objection and ultimately the then Commissioner of Surma Valley and Hills Districts u/s 291 of the Municipal Act started proceeding for suspending the resolution. The Commissioner suspended the resolution. In that order the Commissioner stated that ownership right was with the plaintiffs and in their predecessor. (g) That the tank lost its public nature and it became private tank. It has always been used like a private tank belonging to private persons, the nearby residents taking individual pipe connection from the tank. The municipality never installed any pipe or pump on the bank of the tank for drawing water nor constructed any permanent fencing or any gate or any ghat nor did station any watchman to see that the water was not polluted, (h) That the tank now being used for various purposes like washing clothes, cleaning motor cars. In the year 1969 one Satyendra Nath Sen approached the municipality for release of the part of the area of the land which was agreed to and that will be done, but that was never done. The plaintiffs is-sued necessary notices and thereafter filed the suit with the prayers as indicated above. 4. A written statement was filed on behalf of the Municipality denying the right, title and interest of the plaintiffs over the land and even the agreement itself was denied. It was stated by the Municipality that there was no agreement with Ramdas Banerjee, but there was an agreement with Dinamoni Dashi and under that agreement the management of the tank was taken over by the Municipality and that agreement is still subsisting and that has never been cancelled or has become inoperative. The allegation of purchase by the present plaintiff as stated above was also denied. In paragraph 24(C) the relevant terms in Bengali has been quoted. Translation will read as follows : "The tank belonging to me for the use of the general public shall be under the control and . The allegation of purchase by the present plaintiff as stated above was also denied. In paragraph 24(C) the relevant terms in Bengali has been quoted. Translation will read as follows : "The tank belonging to me for the use of the general public shall be under the control and . management of the municipality and the roads on the four sides bank can be used by the public according to the rules and procedure of Silchar Municipality." It is also stated that even now the tank is being used as an alternative source of water as and when there is break down of water works which often takes place, this tank serves the purpose of drinking water of the locality. Further, this tank is being used for fighting accidental fire. That the possession of the land was handed over to the municipality in the year 1898 and since then the municipality is in continuous possession of the same. Accordingly, they prayed for dismissal of the suit. 5. Following are the issues : (i) Is there any cause of action for this suit? (ii) Is the suit maintainable in its present form? (iii) Is the suit bad for misjoinder and non-joinder of parties ? (iv) Is the suit barred by limitation ? (v) Have the plaintiffs any right, title, interest or possession over the suit land? (vi) Whether the plaintiffs' right, title and interest in the suit land, if any, has been extinguished due to long peaceful possession by the defendants ? (vii) To what relief, if any are the plaintiffs entitled ? 6. The following witnesses have been examined: PW1 Ranjit Kumar Sen the plaintiff No. 8 of the suit. PW2 Surendra Nath Sen the plaintiff No. 4 in the suit. PW3 Robindra Nath Shyam who is a neighbour of the locality. DW1 Madhusudhan Saha Roy. He is an Accountant in the Silchar Municipality since 24.11.72. DW2 Indrajit Dutta. He is a licencee Supervisor cum Municipal Inspector of the Municipality. DW3 Dilip Kr. Chakravarty. He is an employee of Silchar Municipality (as Junior Engineer). DW4 is Sudhir Kumar Chakraborty whose house is situated on the Northern side of the tank. 7. The following are the relevant documents. Ext.6 is the Deed of agreement executed by Dinamoni Dashi in favour of the Commissioner, Silchar Municipality Ext. DW3 Dilip Kr. Chakravarty. He is an employee of Silchar Municipality (as Junior Engineer). DW4 is Sudhir Kumar Chakraborty whose house is situated on the Northern side of the tank. 7. The following are the relevant documents. Ext.6 is the Deed of agreement executed by Dinamoni Dashi in favour of the Commissioner, Silchar Municipality Ext. 7 is a letter dated 12.8.69 written by the Chairman, Silchar Municipal Board to Satyendra Nath Sen, Ext. 8 is a letter dated 5th May, 1968 written by Satyendra Nath Sen to the Chairman, Silchar Municipal Board. Ext. 9 is a letter dated 31.1.69 written by the Chairman to Satyendra Nath Sen. Ext. 10 is a letter dated 9.7.69 written by Satyendra Nath Sen to Silchar Municipal Board. Ext. 12 is a Notice under Section 326 of the Assam Municipal Act issued by an Advocate on behalf of the plaintiffs. This is dated 4.1.1980. Ext. 13 is series of some documents which has no relevance in the matter. Ext. 14 is an order with regard to Probate of an will, Ext. 17 is an order passed by the Magistrate in case No. 609(M) of 1985. This is an order in a proceeding under Section 144. That was a case between Ranj it Kumar Sen and Ratul Das and two others. 8. Now let us discuss the issues. There is no need to discuss the issue No. 1 as that has already been decided by this Court in the order of remand holding that there is cause of action for the suit. Issue Nos. 2 and 3 also do not require any discussion as nothing has been stated in the written statement why the suit is not maintainable in its present form and there is also no pleading with regard to mis joinder and non joinder of parties. 4th issue is on limitation. As a matter of fact at the earlier stage when the suit was dismissed, this issue on limitation was not pressed as noted in the judgment of this Court and even before the trial Court at later stage this issue was not pressed. The main issue is issue No. 5 and that requires discussion. In order to decide issue No. 5 let us have a look at the document which gave the right to the defendant Municipality to manage and control the tank. The main issue is issue No. 5 and that requires discussion. In order to decide issue No. 5 let us have a look at the document which gave the right to the defendant Municipality to manage and control the tank. As will be seen from this document, as a matter of fact, this land belonging to the tank was sought to be acquired, but at the behest of the owner the following things were asked to be done by the Municipality. i) That, as advised by the Executive Engineer, the place be levelled and the low lying places be filled up. ii) That, within an area of 50 ft. from the bank of the tank there should not be any house or habitation, iii) That, the tank be made deep and wide, iv) That, without the permission of the Commissioner or contrary to their wish no house should be constructed in the area, v) That the tank be preserved for drinking water only. Relevant clauses of Ext. 6 are as follows: i) That, if the above works are not done, the same would be done as per advices of the Commissioner, Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Municipality and the tank so developed by me shall be under the control of the Municipality for the public utility and the surrounding roads of the tank shall be used by the general public as per Rules and Regulations of the Silchar Municipality. ii) That, in Case I the first party fails to act as mentioned in this deed of agreement within the stipulated period, my right &title to the Narsingtola shall devolve on the Silchar Municipality as per its resolution dtd. 18th June 1898 and to that I or my heirs shall have no objection. Further, I shall not be able to make any claim for myself done works that should have been done within 15th April 1900 and shall I be bound to hand over possession within any objection. iii) We the 1st party and the 2nd party hereby declare in writing that all of us shall be interested and duty bound to get all these done by the 1st party. Further, our heirs shall be bound to cooperate with the 1st party for its fulfilling the terms and conditions as laid down in the deed of agreement. iii) We the 1st party and the 2nd party hereby declare in writing that all of us shall be interested and duty bound to get all these done by the 1st party. Further, our heirs shall be bound to cooperate with the 1st party for its fulfilling the terms and conditions as laid down in the deed of agreement. In case of 1st party fails to complete the works or stops the works half done or fails to do so within the stipulated period, the resolutions adopted by the said Commissioners on 18th June, 1898 shall be enforced and to that the 1st party or its heirs shall have no objection. Further, we the first party and the 2nd party hereby declare that in case this deed of agreement does not mention any terms and conditions as laid down in the resolution did above, the same would be treated as a part of this agreement and we execute an additional deed of agreement by including the left out terms and conditions within a stipulated period. 9. P.W. 1 deposed as follows : "Let Dinamoni Daishya, vendor of our predecessor S.S. Sen and K.K. Sen entered into an agreement dt. 17.5.1899 with defendant Silchar Municipality about the suit land, to the effect that the defendant would take control and management of the tank on the suit land with 50 ft. open space around it (tank) and keep and maintain for supply of drinking water to the inhabitants of the locality. The said, as the agreement shows, was excavated by Dinamoni Daishya at her own costs. The D. Daishya remained as owner, of the tank, only control was given to the Municipality." In cross examination, this PW admitted that there is a pucca ghat on the Southern bank of the suit land. There is a pucca drain from the ghat to the Municipal drain for flushing out the refused water. He denied the statement that these roads are all along being maintained by the Municipal Board. But he admits that all the three roads on the bank of the suit tank are motorable. He also denies that there are two pucca ghats on the southern and eastern banks. There are bamboo fencing around the tank. He also denies that Municipality raised spur to prevent erosion. He admitted that after filing of the suit the Municipality improved the tank by digging the same. He also denies that there are two pucca ghats on the southern and eastern banks. There are bamboo fencing around the tank. He also denies that Municipality raised spur to prevent erosion. He admitted that after filing of the suit the Municipality improved the tank by digging the same. He admitted that in Ext. 8 a letter written by Satyendra Nath Sen to the Chairman, Silchar Municipal Board it was stated inter alia as follows: "Thus suffice it to say, nevertheless, that the basic conditions governing the agreement have been, by and large,, observed till today, and are still in force." He denies that water is carried from this tank every day by yoke. PW admits that before their forefathers purchased the land Dinamoni Dashi, the then owner, for the maintenance of the tank lie handed over the possession of the tank as well as occupation of land to the Municipality and they did not acquire any possession. It was also admitted by him that the Municipality had been managing this tank since long. He stated that after the water works came into existence in Silchar Municipality, the water from this tank was not used for drinking purpose. He admits that there is fencing around the tank since 25-30 years back. In cross he admits that they madex the purchase with knowledge of the terms of the agreement by Dinamoni Dashi, he also admits that Dinamoni Dashi gave the tank to the Municipality for the use of the water by the general public. He also admits that there is a clause in the agreement that the general public would be able to use the roads surrounding the tank. He denies the contents of Ext. 8 a letter written by his father. 10. PW 3 is a neighbour near the tank who states that this tank was cleaned with public donation. He admits that at present the water is more or less is good. He states that people used to draw water by buckets for the purpose of washing. He states that few years ago this tank was dug and its banks were muded by earth filling. DW 1 is an Accountant who states that the tank is maintained by the Municipality. He proves certain entries in the Cash Book to show the cleaning and other means made from time to time. Ext. B is an entry of the year 1965. DW 1 is an Accountant who states that the tank is maintained by the Municipality. He proves certain entries in the Cash Book to show the cleaning and other means made from time to time. Ext. B is an entry of the year 1965. Ext. C is an entry of the year 1967. Ext.D is an entry in the year 1973-74. Ext. E is an entry in the year 1976-77. Ext. F is an entry of the year 1978-79. Ext. G is an entry in the year 1979-80. They are number of entries to show that the Municipality has been maintaining and cleaning the tank from time to time. DW-2 who is an employee of the Municipality since 1969 states that on all sides of the tank there are bamboo fencing and also thorny hedges on the Eastern and Southern side of the tank there are pucca ghats. They used the water of the tank. He also further stated that Municipality has been maintaining the tank and the adjoining lands. To use the water of this tank by descending in it is not permissible. The people living in the neighbourhood of this tank use the water of this tank. The water of this tank is clean. From time to time earth cutting was done by the Municipality. The public utility of this tank is still there. D.W. No. 3 is Dilip Kr. Chakravarty and he is an employee of the Municipality since last 22 years, he deposed that the roads and the tank are maintained by the Silchar Municipality and he has seen it during his service period. He also deposed that there are pucca ghats on the Southern and Eastern banks of the tank. People use the water of the said tank. Many of them carry water while many others take water of the said tank through tubes by pumping. None is allowed to descend the tank. The tank is being maintained by the Municipality. DW 4 is Sudhir Kumar Chakravorty. He is a resident on the Northern side of the tank. He was a Municipal Commissioner and he further deposed that the people used the water of this tank. 11. On the basis of the evidence, it is crystal clear that the Municipality is all along in possession of this tank and its surrounding lands. Ext. He is a resident on the Northern side of the tank. He was a Municipal Commissioner and he further deposed that the people used the water of this tank. 11. On the basis of the evidence, it is crystal clear that the Municipality is all along in possession of this tank and its surrounding lands. Ext. 6 the agreement is definitely a grant by which the owner granted certain things as mentioned therein for a particular purpose. A grant may be defined generally as a transfer of property by an instrument in writing with or without delivery of possession. The grant certainly will create right on the person in whose favour grant is made. 12. A grant literally means transfer and it is deemed to be a gift after such a grant is made it caries with it a transfer of some right and it is used specifically in law where it means the conveyance of property from one person to another by deed. In this particular case, the grant was made by a registered deed and this created an indefeasible right on the Municipality. In Blacks Law Dictionary grant has been defined to bestow/confer upon some person or persons by other person or entity which makes the grant. 13. Further, even if it is accepted to be a contract, the contract must be given effect to in all its forms. The exclusion clause must be strictly construed to deny benefit to a person who has purchased the land with eyes open knowing the things in existence. A property is in occupation of a public body from 1899 and it is for public purpose. That right cannot be wiped out by the purchasers in the manner sought to be done on the flimsy ground that the grant has lost its purpose/object. 14. For all these reasons we hold that the plaintiffs did not acquire right, tile and interest to the suit land and such alleged right, title and interest of the plaintiffs cannot be enforced against Municipality due to long and peaceful possession by the defendant. Ext. 6 still holds the field and right of the defendant to the suit land still exists with all force. Issue Nos. Ext. 6 still holds the field and right of the defendant to the suit land still exists with all force. Issue Nos. 5 and 6 accordingly are decided against the plaintiffs and that being our finding this appeal is allowed which we hereby do by quashing the judgment dated 12.4.1999 passed by the Civil Judge (Sr. Division) No.1, Cachar at Silchar in Title Suit No. 15/1980. The suit of the plaintiffs shall stand dismissed. On the facts and circumstances of this case, we leave the parties to bear their own costs.