JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. G.N. Sahewalla, learned Sr. counsel appearing for the appellant. Also heard Mr. S. Ali, learned counsel representing the respondents. 2. This second appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree of reversal passed by the learned Civil Judge No. 1, Dibrugarh in Title Appeal No. 21/2007 allowing the appeal filed by the plaintiffs/respondents thereby setting aside the judgment and decree dated 14-05-2007 and 17-05-2007 respectively passed by the learned Munsiff No. 1, Dibrugarh in Title Suit No. 103/2005. 3. The plaintiff’s case in brief is that he is the absolute owner in possession having marketable right, title and interest in respect of a plot of land measuring 1K-10L covered by Dag No. 29 of Periodic Patta No. 41 under Moran Nagar, Mouza- Moran, Dibrugarh, more fully described in the schedule to the plaint. The said plot of land had been purchased by him from his brother viz. Trailakya Borgohain by means of a registered deed of sale bearing No. 2255 dated 18-07-1989 pursuant whereto he was put in possession in respect of the said plot of land. Since the purchase of the land the plaintiff had been enjoying peaceful possession in respect of the said plot of land. However, when the plaintiff was undergoing medical treatment in connection with his ailment and was away from Dibrugarh, on 24-07-2005, the defendant had trespassed into his land and thereafter, collected some bricks and construction materials for the purpose of making construction. When the protest was raised against such illegal encroachment, the defendant threatened the plaintiff with dire consequences, as a result of which the plaintiff was compelled to file the instant suit praying for a decree declaring his right, title and interest over the suit land and also for recovery of khas possession. 4. The defendant had contested the suit filed by the plaintiff by raising formal plea regarding maintainability of the suit on the ground of want of cause of action; defect in identity of the suit land and also on the ground that the relief prayed for was barred by limitation. 4. The defendant had contested the suit filed by the plaintiff by raising formal plea regarding maintainability of the suit on the ground of want of cause of action; defect in identity of the suit land and also on the ground that the relief prayed for was barred by limitation. In his written statement the defendant had taken the plea that he has purchased a plot of land measuring 1 bigha covered by Dag No. 29 of Patta No. 41 of the Moran Nagar, Mouza- Moran, Dibrugarh from one Indreshwar Kalita by means of a registered deed of sale dated 04-01-2005 and accordingly, has been possessing his purchased land. The defendant has categorically denied that he has encroached upon the plot of land belonging to the plaintiff as has been alleged in the plaint and instead has prayed for dismissal of the suit. 5. Based on the pleadings of the parties the learned Trial Court has framed as many as six issues which are as follows:- 1. Whether there is cause of action in the suit? 2. Whether the suit is maintainable in law and facts? 3. Whether the plaintiff has right, title and interest over the suit land? 4. Whether the defendant is the owner of the suit land? 5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree as prayed for? 6. Whether any other relief/s the parties are entitled to? 6. The issue No. 3 and 4, being the key issues having a material bearing in the outcome of the case, were taken up together by the learned Trial Court. 7. After a threadbare analysis of the material evidence on record and more particularly the two inspection reports marked as Exhibit-‘C1’ and ‘C2’, the learned Trial Court was of the opinion that the plaintiff has got right, title and interest over the suit land. However, having held so, the learned Trial Court had also gone on to record a finding of fact based on Exhibit-‘C1’ and ‘C2’ that the land of the plaintiff comprising 1K-10L is still vacant and has not been encroached by the defendant as alleged, on account of the fact that the aforesaid two inspection reports dated 25-11-2006 as well as 11-04-2007 had clearly indicated that the land measuring 2K-15L forming part of Dag No. 29 of Patta No. 41 is still lying vacant. Since, according to the learned Trial Court, the plaintiff had failed to prove and establish the fact of encroachment of his land by the defendant, hence, the suit filed by the plaintiff was dismissed by the judgment and order dated 14-05-2007. 8. Being highly aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment dated 14-05-2007 passed by the learned Trial Court in Title Appeal No. 103/2005, the plaintiff as appellant had preferred Title Appeal No. 21/2007 before the court of Civil Judge No. 1, Dibrugarh. By the judgment and decree dated 13-11-2009 the learned First Appellate Court had reversed the decree passed by the Trial Court by holding that the plaintiff has been able to prove and establish his right, title and interest over the suit land and, therefore, was entitled to a decree as prayed for. 9. Challenging the judgment and decree of reversal dated 13-11-2009 the defendant as appellant has approached this Court by filing the instant second appeal, which was admitted to formal hearing by framing the following substantial questions of law:- (i) “Whether the learned first appellate court committed illegality by refusing to consider and rely on the local inspection report submitted by the Commissioner appointed by the court below? and (ii) Whether the learned appellate court committed illegality by failing to consider the boundaries of the suit land as well as the land under the possession of the defendant-appellant?” 10. By referring to provision of Order XXVI Rule 10(2) of the CPC, Mr. Sahewalla submits that the two inspection reports marked Exhibit-‘C1’ and ‘C2’ pertakes the character of evidence in the eye of law. Since the plaintiff has chosen not to cross-examine the authors of the said inspection reports, hence, he cannot now turn back and question the integrity of the said inspection reports. Mr. Sahewalla further submits that a perusal of the aforementioned inspection reports categorically goes to show that the land claimed by the plaintiff forms a part of a plot of land measuring 2K-15L which is still lying vacant. That apart, the plaintiff has not able to prove and establish the fact that the defendants had actually encroached upon the land claimed by the plaintiff. In that view of the matter there was no material evidence available on record for the learned First Appellate Court to reverse the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. Mr. That apart, the plaintiff has not able to prove and establish the fact that the defendants had actually encroached upon the land claimed by the plaintiff. In that view of the matter there was no material evidence available on record for the learned First Appellate Court to reverse the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. Mr. Sahewalla, however, submits in all fairness that his client does not have any claim over the plot of land described in the schedule to the plaint and would not have any grievance if the right, title and interest of the plaintiff is declared in respect of the said plot of land. He, however, raises strong objection to the conclusion of the First Appellate Court indicating encroachment of the suit land by the defendant, which finding is not based on any evidence according to the learned counsel. 11. Per contra Mr. S. Ali, learned counsel for the respondent/ plaintiff emphatically submits that both the courts below have concurrently recorded the finding to the effect that the plaintiff was entitled to declaration of right, title and interest in respect of the suit land and such finding of fact not having been challenged by the defendant/ appellant, the suit filed by the plaintiff cannot be dismissed merely by relying upon the inspection reports dated 25-11-2006 and 11-04-2007, more so when the authors of the inspection reports were not put to cross-examination. Mr. Ali further submits that the Exhibit-‘C1’ and ‘C2’ are not even evidence in the eye of law as the authors of the said reports have not vouched for the authenticity of the entries made therein as per requirement of the Indian Evidence Act. Mr. Ali further submits that in view of the unimpeached evidence of the PW-2, 3 and 5 testifying to the fact that the defendant had in fact encroached upon the suit land and having regard to the fact that there is no challenge made to the registered deed of sale bearing No. 2255 dated 18-07-1989, there was no illegality or infirmity in the judgment and decree passed by the learned First Appellate Court. He, therefore, submits that the question of law framed by this Court at the time of admission of the appeal does not at all arise for adjudication in the facts of the present case. As such, this second appeal deserves to be dismissed with cost. He, therefore, submits that the question of law framed by this Court at the time of admission of the appeal does not at all arise for adjudication in the facts of the present case. As such, this second appeal deserves to be dismissed with cost. In support of his argument Mr. Ali placed reliance upon the judgment and decision rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Santosh Hazari Vs. Purushottam Tiwari reported in (2001) 3 SCC 179 . 12. I have considered the rival submission made by and on behalf of the parties and have also perused the materials available on record. It appears that neither the plaintiff has any claim in respect of the land measuring 1 bigha claimed to have been purchased by the defendant nor does the defendant has any claim in respect of the suit land measuring 1K-10L purchased by the plaintiff. The core question that arises for determination in the facts and circumstances of the case is as regards the true identity of the land under the possession of the respective parties by virtue of their purchased deeds. Since the defendant has not questioned the entitlement of the plaintiff for a declaration of his right, title and interest over the suit land based on the sale deed dated 18-07-1989 and having regard to the fact that the learned courts below have also concurrently found the plaintiff to be entitled to a declaration of his title and interest over the suit land on the basis of Exhibit-‘1’, ‘2’, ‘3’ and ‘4’, hence, I am of the opinion that the judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court is based on cogent materials available on record. This is more so in view of the fact that the PW-3, 4 and 5 have categorically testified to the fact that the plaintiff was in possession of the suit land prior to being dispossessed by the defendant. As such the substantial questions of law sought to be argued does not raise for determination in the facts and circumstance of the case. Hence, this appeal is devoid of any merit and would accordingly stand dismissed. 13. As such the substantial questions of law sought to be argued does not raise for determination in the facts and circumstance of the case. Hence, this appeal is devoid of any merit and would accordingly stand dismissed. 13. However, having held as above, it is also made clear that in the event the decree is put to execution by the plaintiff/ respondent the execution proceeding would remain strictly confined to the suit land described in the schedule to the plaint alone. There would be no order as to cost. Send back the LCR.