ORDER (Oral) Heard learned counsel for the appellant. [2] This Second Appeal has been preferred on behalf of the plaintiff in Title Suit No.11 of 2008. Both the Courts below concurrently held that plaintiff could not prove his right, title and interest over the suit land and consequently, trial Court dismissed the suit which was confirmed by the learned First Appellate Court. [3] Paresh Chandra Nath as plaintiff instituted Title Suit No. 11 of 2008 in the Court of learned Munsiff No.1 at Kokrajhar stating that his father owned 1 Bigha 4 Kathas 6 Lechas land under Dag No.4 & 5 of Khatian No.4 (old) in village Totpara under Kokrajhar Revenue Circle. After death of his father, plaintiff continued possessing the same. However, subsequently he had to shift from the plot of land to some other place in view of erosion by river. The Plaintiff’s father died in the year 1979 and thereafter, name of the plaintiff was mutated in respect of 1 Bigha 3 Kathas 9 Lechas of land under the aforesaid Dag and Patta by way of inheritance. He also obtained possession certificate on 05.10.2005 from the Revenue Authority. According to the plaintiff, defendants dispossessed him on 08.01.2008 from the suit land measuring more or less 2 Kathas within the Schedule A of the plaint. The plaintiff protested, however, to no avail. It is also stated that in the year 2004 a similar attempt was made by the defendants but the same was foiled by the plaintiff. The Defendants do not have any right, title and interest in the land and it is the plaintiff who is entitled to declaration as to his right, title, interest and recovery of possession by demolishing house structure, fencing etc erected by the defendants from Schedule-A land. [4] On being summoned defendants No.1 & 2 submitted written statement stating that the suit land along with 3 Bighas 2 Kathas 13 Lechas of land originally belonged to the father of the defendants who sold 1 Bigha 4 Kathas 6 Lechas to the father of the plaintiff Sarbeswar Debnath on 28.10.1970 by registered sale deed No.5152/1970 and handed over the possession. They continued in possession of the rest of the land under Dag No. 4 & 5 under Khatian No. 4 (old). They continued in possession of the rest of the land under Dag No. 4 & 5 under Khatian No. 4 (old). Sarbeswar Debnath sold 1 Bigha out of the aforesaid land to one Joyraj Sarma on 17.12.1976 by executing registered sale deed No. 4455 of 1976. The balance land was also sold by plaintiff’s father to some other persons who have been in possession of this land and so plaintiff does not have any semblance of title to any land under Dag No.4 & 5 of Katian 4 (old). The defendants entering into collusion with the Revenue Authority managed to get mutation of the land and also obtained possession certificate. Fact remains that plaintiff has no right, title, interest and possession over the land and so he is not entitled to get any declaration or decree of possession etc. [5] On the basis of the aforesaid rival contentions of the parties, the learned trial court framed as many as 6 issues which are given below: 1) Whether the suit is maintainable? 2) Is there any cause of action for the suit? 3) Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? 4) Whether the plaintiff has right, title and interest over the suit land? 5) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get a decree of khas possession against the defendants by demolishing the structures standing over the suit land? 6) To what other relief, if any, the plaintiff is entitled? [6] The plaintiff examined five witnesses and exhibited two documents, whereas defendants examined one witness and exhibited four documents. The learned trial court on perusal of the materials available on record passed his judgment and decree dated 17.04.2013 holding, inter alia, that plaintiff failed to give the boundaries of the suit land, he was ignorant about the relevant facts like washing away of the part of the suit land by river and so on. The learned trial court also observed that DW1 mentioned in his pleading that plaintiff’s father Sarbeswar Debnath had transferred 1 Bigha land to Joyraj Sarma on 17.12.1976 by a registered sale deed No.4455/1976. Defendant being DW1 also brought on record Kacha patta as Exhibits - B(1), B(2) & B(3), Khatian No.4 as Exhibit-A, revenue paying receipts as Exhibits - C(1) & C(2) and land holding certificate as Exhibit-D. The plaintiff on the other hand could not produce any land revenue paying receipt. Defendant being DW1 also brought on record Kacha patta as Exhibits - B(1), B(2) & B(3), Khatian No.4 as Exhibit-A, revenue paying receipts as Exhibits - C(1) & C(2) and land holding certificate as Exhibit-D. The plaintiff on the other hand could not produce any land revenue paying receipt. The only document the plaintiff could bring on record is Exhibit-1, the registered sale deed No. 5152/1972. Having considered the oral evidence as well as documentary evidence adduced by the parties, the learned trial court, therefore, dismissed the suit of the plaintiff in entirety by aforesaid judgment and decree. [7] Aggrieved, the plaintiff preferred Title appeal No.1 of 2013 in the Court of learned Civil Judge, Kokrajhar, who after hearing the parties at length passed impugned judgment and decree on 20.06.2014 dismissing the appeal and upholding the findings of the learned trial court as referred to above. The learned First Appellate Court has considered the deposition of plaintiff’s witnesses as well as that of the witness of the defendants with all exhibited documents adduced by both the sides. The assertion made by DW1 that plaintiff’s father had transferred 1 Bigha land to Joyraj Sarma while the balance of the land purchased by him was sold to others is not disputed by plaintiff in course of cross-examination. Learned First Appellate Court also considered Katcha Patta of Khatia No.4 as well as Exhibits- B1, B2 & B3, wherein name of Joyraj Sarma is projected as patttadar of Khatian No.4. The assertion of DW1 that land measuring 1 Bigha was sold by plaintiff’s father to Joyraj Sarma, therefore, got support from Exhibits- B1, B2, & B3 and so the learned First Appellate court upheld the findings of the learned trial court that plaintiff’s father himself transferred 1B out of 1 B 4K 6L purchased by him from father of the defendants to Joyraj Sarma on 17.12.1976 and thus, the plaintiff did not have any title left to the suit land. The appellate judgement dismissing the appeal and upholding findings of the learned trial court have been brought under challenge in the present Second Appeal. [8] The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned courts below considered the possession certificate issued by the Revenue Authority and that the findings of the learned trial court are also vitiated by perversity. The appellate judgement dismissing the appeal and upholding findings of the learned trial court have been brought under challenge in the present Second Appeal. [8] The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned courts below considered the possession certificate issued by the Revenue Authority and that the findings of the learned trial court are also vitiated by perversity. In view of such assertion made by the learned counsel for the appellant, this Court requested the learned counsel to provide certified copy of deposition of the witness. The learned counsel handed over the certified copy of depositions of the witnesses of the suit which I have gone through. [9] The defendants themselves admitted that plaintiff’s father purchased 1 Bigha 4 Kathas 6 Lechas from their father on 28.10.1976 by Exhibit-1 (registered sale deed No.5152/ 1978). So, purchase of 1 Bigha 4 Kathas 6 Lechas by Sarbeswar Debnath is not in dispute. What is in dispute is that plaintiff did not inherit the property purchased by his father while the plaintiff asserted that after death of Sarbeswar Debnath whole of the land devolved on him, consequent to which he obtained mutation in his favour in respect of 1B 3K 9L out of total land of 1 Bigha 4 Kathas 6 Lechas. The defendant on the other hand asserts that Sarbeswar Debnath himself sold 1 Bigha land to Joyraj Sarma on 17.12.1976 by valid registered sale deed No.4455 of 1976. The balance land was also sold to other purchaser who was in possession of the land. This assertion by DW1 in examination-in-chief was not challenged by the plaintiff side in course of cross-examination. I have perused the depositions of DW1 in entirety. On the face of specific pleading by the defendants that Joyraj Sarma purchased 1 Bigha from Sarbeswar Debnath on 17.12.1976 and there being specific assertion in examination-in-chief to that effect, the plaintiff was duty bound to cross examine the witness on this point to discredit him in so far as Annexure-1 of the examination chief is concerned. On the face of specific pleading by the defendants that Joyraj Sarma purchased 1 Bigha from Sarbeswar Debnath on 17.12.1976 and there being specific assertion in examination-in-chief to that effect, the plaintiff was duty bound to cross examine the witness on this point to discredit him in so far as Annexure-1 of the examination chief is concerned. Having noticed the oral assertion of DW1 on the basis of specific pleading that the land was purchased by Joyraj Sarma which is evidenced by the records of rights exhibited by DW1 as Exhibits- B1, B2 & B3, the assertions of the defendants as to exhaustion of title of plaintiff and status of Joyraj Sarma as pattadar of Khatian No.4 by way of purchase vide aforesaid registered sale deed is vindicated. The findings of the learned Courts below, therefore, cannot be said to be perverse. The findings are based on not only on the pleadings and oral evidence of the parties but is also corroborated by Exhibits-B1, B2 & B3 apart from Exhibits-C & D and so, the sole argument put forward by the learned counsel for the appellant that the findings of the learned Courts below are perverse, cannot be constrained. Having so found this Court is concerned to hold that no substantial question of law does arise from the facts and circumstance of this case and consequently, this appeal is not admitted. It is, accordingly, dismissed. [10] No order as to cost.