JUDGMENT : RSA 201/2014 and RSA 79/2004 have been listed together and are also heard analogously as requested by the learned counsel for the parties. However, it is considered appropriate to dispose of both the appeals by separate judgments. 2. The Second Appeal, numbered as RSA 201/2014, is directed against the judgment and decree dated 23.11.2013 passed by the learned Civil Judge No. 1, Cachar, Silchar, in Title Appeal No. 7/2009, decreeing the suit of the plaintiff in full by allowing the Cross Appeal of the plaintiff and dismissing the appeal of the defendant/appellant and modifying the judgment and decree dated 16.02.2009 passed by the learned Munsiff No. 1, Cachar, Silchar, in Title Suit No. 136/2006. 3. The appeal is preferred by defendant No. 1 and defendant No. 2. Defendant No. 1 was the plaintiff of the suit out of which RSA 79/2004 had emerged. 4. One Md. Aftab Uddin Borbhuiya, as the plaintiff, had filed a suit for right, title and interest in respect of Schedule-2 land, which comprises of an area of 12 Katha 6 Gonda in Dag Nos. 55, 115 and 120 in 2nd RS Patta No. 18, and 5 Katha 6 Chattak 3 Gonda 1 Kora in Dag Nos. 121 and 126 in 2nd RS Patta No. 45; for confirmation of possession and for a declaration that the principal defendants have no right, title and possession over the Schedule-2 land and for restraining the principal defendants from creating disturbances in peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the suit land described in Schedule-2. The plaintiff claims right, title and interest in respect of the aforesaid Schedule-2 land on the strength of purchases made. 5. The case of the defendants is that while they have no claim over the land in Dag No. 55 and 115 of suit Patta No. 18, their case is also of purchases made on 19.11.90 and 18.02.90. 6. The learned Trial Court, on the basis of the pleadings, framed the following issues:- “1. Is there any cause of action for the suit? 2. Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form and manner? 3. Whether the suit is barred by law of limitation? 4. Whether the suit is bad for defect of parties? 5. Whether the plaintiff has right, title, interest and possession over the suit land? 6. Is there any cause of action for the suit? 2. Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form and manner? 3. Whether the suit is barred by law of limitation? 4. Whether the suit is bad for defect of parties? 5. Whether the plaintiff has right, title, interest and possession over the suit land? 6. Whether the principal defendants have no right, title, interest and possession over the suit land described in the schedule-2? 7. Whether the plaintiff’s suit is barred by res-judicata? 8. To what relief/reliefs the parties are entitled ?” 7. The plaintiff examined 7 witnesses out of which the evidence of PW6 was expunged for his failure to appear for cross-examination. Defendants also examined 4 witnesses including defendant No. 1 as DW2. Both the parties exhibited certain documents. 8. The learned Trial Court held that the plaintiff could prove the sale deeds in respect of the suit land except land measuring 1 Katha 2 Chattak in Dag No. 120 in Patta No. 18, and 1 Katha 2 Chattak 3 Gonda 1 Kora in Dag No. 121 in Patta No. 45 and that the defendants failed to prove their case of purchase. There was an appeal by the defendant and a Cross Appeal by the plaintiff. As had been noted earlier, the learned Lower Appellate Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff in its entirety. 9. The Second Appeal was admitted to be heard by an order dated 20.10.2014 on the following substantial questions of law:- “1. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is barred by limitation? 2. Whether in the absence of any findings regarding possession of the plaintiff over the suit land, the learned courts below committed error in decreeing the suit for confirmation of possession and declaration of title?” 10. B.K. Purukayastha, learned counsel for the appellants has submitted, in respect of the first substantial question of law, that the suit of the plaintiff was barred by limitation as, admittedly, there was a Section 145 CrPC proceeding in the year 1995 and the suit was filed only in the year 2003 and the learned Courts below, overlooking the period of limitation, held the suit to be not barred by limitation. According to him, the suit ought to have been filed within a period of three years from 1995. With regard to the second substantial question of law, Mr. According to him, the suit ought to have been filed within a period of three years from 1995. With regard to the second substantial question of law, Mr. Purukayastha has submitted that the learned Courts below did not record any specific finding with regard to the contentious issue of possession and, therefore, without having recorded any such finding pertaining to the possession, plaintiff’s right, title and confirmation of possession could not have been declared. 11. It is submitted by Ms. B. Choudhury that in the Section 145 CrPC proceeding, possession was declared in favour of the plaintiff on 12.12.97 and the Section 145 CrPC proceeding related to 8 Katha of land. Subsequent thereto, as possession was declared in favour of the plaintiff, there was no occasion for the plaintiff to file a suit. However, when the defendants again started interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff in the first week of February, 2003, the suit came to be filed and, therefore, the plea advanced that the suit was barred by limitation cannot be sustained. It is also submitted that the plea of the defendants regarding purchase was negated by the Courts below and the plaintiff proved the sale deeds by which he had purchased the Schedule-2 land. 12. Learned counsel submits that delivery of possession is a facet of sale of immovable property and the evidence of PW1, the plaintiff, PW2, PW3 and PW6 eloquently testifies that possession was delivered to the plaintiff on execution of the sale deeds in question. That is why the prayer for confirmation of possession was made. The plaintiff having proved the sale deeds in question, even if there is no categorical finding by the Courts below regarding possession, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the same will not be of any consequence, more so, when the defendants had failed to prove their purchase. 13. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the materials on record. 14. So far as the plea of limitation is concerned, it is to be noted that in the Section 145 CrPC proceeding, possession was declared in favour of the plaintiff. When the declaration was made in favour of the plaintiff in the proceeding under Section 145 CrPC, I am inclined to accept the submission of Ms. 14. So far as the plea of limitation is concerned, it is to be noted that in the Section 145 CrPC proceeding, possession was declared in favour of the plaintiff. When the declaration was made in favour of the plaintiff in the proceeding under Section 145 CrPC, I am inclined to accept the submission of Ms. Choudhury that there was no occasion for the plaintiff to approach the Court earlier. When there was disturbance again in the year 2003, the suit was filed and, therefore, as held by the learned Courts below, the suit was not barred by limitation. 15. The plaintiff exhibited 4 sale deeds, Ext.-1, Ext.-2, Ext.-3 and Ext.-4 out of which Ext.-1 and Ext.-2 were the original registered sale deeds and Exts.-3 and 4, certified copies of the sale deeds. Subsequently, original sale deeds, Ext.-3 and 4 were produced in the Court and the same were exhibited as Exts.-9 and 10. The Courts below have held that by proving Exts. 1, 2, 3 and 10, the plaintiff was successful to establish right, title, interest and possession over Schedule-2 land by purchase. On consideration of the evidence on record, the learned Lower Appellate Court also interfered with the finding of the learned Trial Court in respect of the area of land over which right, title and interest was not declared in favour of the plaintiff. 16. The evidence of the plaintiff’s witnesses and, more particularly, PW1, PW2, PW3 and PW6 goes to show that possession was delivered to the plaintiff on execution of the sale deeds in question. When there is evidence on record regarding delivery of possession and when the plaintiff has established the purchase made by him through the sale deeds, coupled with the fact that the defendants failed to establish their case of purchase, I am of the considered opinion that no interference is called for with regard to the judgment of the learned Courts below. 17. In view of the above, I find no merit in this appeal and, consequently, the same is dismissed. Substantial questions of law are answered accordingly. No cost. 18. Registry will send back the records.