JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. C.K.S. Baruah, learned counsel for the appellant. None has appeared for the respondents. 2. This appeal by the plaintiff is directed against the judgment and decree dated 04.06.2003 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division No. 3, Guwahati, in Title Appeal No. 5/2002, dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant and upholding the judgment and decree dated 04.12.2001, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division No. 1, Guwahati, in Title Suit No. 230/1995, whereby the suit of the plaintiff had been dismissed. 3. The plaintiff had filed the suit for declaration of right, title and interest and for delivery of khas possession in respect of the land described in Schedule-A to the plaint; permanent injunction, etc. 3. The Second Appeal was admitted to be heard by order dated 26.09.2003 on the following substantial question of law: “Whether the finding of the Courts below that the plaintiff’s vendor has no saleable right is sustainable under the law.” 4. The projected case of the plaintiff in the plaint is that he had purchased the suit land measuring 1 Katha 10 Lecha vide registered sale deed 06.01.90, from pro forma defendant No. 2 and he was dispossessed by defendant No. 1 on 09.04.95. 5. The defendant No. 1 filed written statement stating that he was in possession of a plot of land measuring about 2 Katha 2 Lecha and, subsequently, an agreement was entered into on 18.10.85 with the pro forma defendant No. 2, who claimed to be the owner of the land, for sale of 1 Katha 15 Lecha of land at a consideration amount of Rs. 9,000/- and he also paid Rs. 2,000/- as advance. Thereafter, he had developed the plot of land. Subsequently, a Section 145 CrPC proceeding was instituted by him against the proposed vendor as he, along with his sons, made forceful attempt to dispossess the defendant. It is also pleaded that, subsequently, in the year 1988, pro forma defendant No. 2’s land in Dag No. 1349, 1350 and 1351, wherein the defendant was also in occupation, either in Dag No. 1349 or 1350, were declared as ceiling surplus land and, therefore, in any view of the matter, the pro forma defendant No. 2 could not have transferred the land to the plaintiff by the so called sale deed dated 06.01.90. 6. 6. Both the courts below held that the vendor of the plaintiff did not have right to sell the suit land and, accordingly, the plaintiff did not acquire any right, title and interest on the strength of Ext.-1 Sale Deed dated 06.01.90 (though the learned Lower Appellate Court mistakenly had referred to the same as Ext.-2). 7. Mr. C.K.S. Baruah, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the finding of the learned Courts below that the vendor of the plaintiff did not have any saleable right is not sustainable in law. It is submitted by him that the land in Dag No. 1349 had been declared to be ceiling-free land vide Ext.-3 and, therefore, the plaintiff’s vendor had subsisting right, title and interest in Dag No. 1349 when vide Ext.-1, land in Dag No. 1349 was sold. 8. I have considered the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant and have perused Ext.-3 as well as other materials on record. 9. It is to be noticed that Ext.-3 is dated 14.09.1990 and, therefore, evidently the transfer had taken place prior to the issuance of the ceiling-free certificate, Ext.-3. It also appears from the judgments of the learned Court’s below that Ext.-3 was duly considered by the learned Courts below and, therefore, the submission of Mr. Baruah, that because of the land having been declared ceiling-free vide Ext.-3, the vendor of the plaintiff had right, title and interest to execute the sale deed on 06.01.90, cannot be accepted as the date of the sale deed is prior in point of time. That apart, it is also seen that vide Ext.-3, only a part of Dag No. 1359 was declared to be free from ceiling. 10. In view of the above, I find no merit in this appeal and, accordingly, the same is dismissed. No cost. 11. Registry will send back the records.