JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. S.K. Medhi, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the appellants-plaintiffs. Also heard Mr. S.U. Ahmed, the respondent-defendants. 2. The present appellants are the plaintiffs in Title Suit No. 27/2002 filed in the court of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), No. 1, Barpeta. The brief facts of the plaintiff-appellants’ case is that the land described in the schedule of the plaint is allotted by the Government in the name of Gojendra Ojah, the predecessor in interest of the plaintiff-appellants way back in the year 1963. On the basis of the said allotment, Gojendra Ojah, cultivated the suit land by engaging labourers. Later on due to his illness, he used to possess the suit land by inducting persons and allowing them to carry out cultivation on the said allotted land. 3. On the death of Gojendra Ojah on 29.12.1998, the present plaintiff-appellant No. 2 started cultivation over the suit land including cultivation of seasonal crops. On 24.3.2000, the plaintiff-appellant No. 2 found that the defendant-respondents started ploughing over a part of the suit land. On being confronted, the defendant-respondents denied the title of the plaintiff-appellants and threatened the plaintiff-appellant No. 2 with dire consequence. The defendant-respondents are trespassers over the suit land and as such they are liable to be evicted and, hence, the suit has been filed for declaration of right, title, interest and for recovery of khas possession. 4. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 as the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 contested the suit by filing their joint written statement. It is the defence pleaded by the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 that the Government allotted 5 Bighas of land to the father of the defendant No. 1, who after clearing the land by removing jungle started occupying the same since 40 years back. It is also the case of the defendant-respondents that the local Lat Mandal of the area collusively allotted the land in the name of the plaintiff-appellants’ Predecessor-in-Interest and the allegation of forcible dispossession of the plaintiff-appellants on 24.3.2000 is false. The defendant No. 3 is cultivating the suit land on behalf of the defendant-respondents. It is also disputed with regard to the existence of the suit land as described in the plaint. 5. On the basis of the pleadings, the trial court framed the following issues: (i) Whether there is cause of action for the suit? The defendant No. 3 is cultivating the suit land on behalf of the defendant-respondents. It is also disputed with regard to the existence of the suit land as described in the plaint. 5. On the basis of the pleadings, the trial court framed the following issues: (i) Whether there is cause of action for the suit? (ii) Whether the suit is barred by the provisions of law of limitation? (iii) Whether the plaintiffs have right, title and interest over the suit land and their predecessor-in-interest Gojendra Ojah got allotment over the suit land in the year 1963 from the Government? (iv) Whether the defendants dispossessed the plaintiffs from the suit land in the year 2000 and if so, the defendants are liable to be evicted from the suit land? (v) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to get a decree as prayed for? (vi) To what relief or reliefs, if any the parties are entitled to? 6. The plaintiff-appellants’ sided examined the Lat Mandal as PW1 and the plaintiff-appellant No. 2 himself as PW2. On the other hand, the defendant-respondents’ side examined the defendant-respondent No. 1 as the sole witnesses. Amongst other documents exhibited, the plaintiff- appellants exhibited Ext. Nos. 1,2 and 3 which are certified copies of the Chita in the custody of PW1 (Lat Mandal). In addition to that the plaintiffs’ side also exhibited Ext. Nos. 4 and 5 whereby the plaintiff-appellants through their predecessor-in-interest and the plaintiff-appellant No. 2 himself paid requisite Government fees as against the allotment of the land covered by three dag numbers mentioned in the plaint. 7. The learned trial court after hearing the parties decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff-appellants. The trial court while discussing the issue No. 3 came to the conclusion that on the basis of the Ext. Nos. 1, 2 and 3 proved by PW1 that 5 Bighas of land covered by Dag Nos. 70, 171 and 340 was allotted to Gojendra Ojah. PW1 also corroborated the boundary of the suit land as per the plaint. The trial court on the basis of the evidence of PW1 had considered that one Khagen Pathak was also allotted a plot of land measuring 4 Bighas, 8 Khatas, covered by Dag Nos. 167, 342, 391 with specific boundaries. The trial court on the scrutiny of the evidence and considering the pleadings of both the parties, finally concluded that the Ext. Nos. 167, 342, 391 with specific boundaries. The trial court on the scrutiny of the evidence and considering the pleadings of both the parties, finally concluded that the Ext. Nos. 1, 2 and 3 were sufficient to show that the suit land was allotted in the name of Gojendra Ojah and on his death, the plaintiff-appellants are holding the possession inasmuch as there is no piece of material evidence to show that there was cancellation of the allotment as apparent from the Ext. Nos. 2 and 3. On the basis of the said findings, the trial court decreed the suit by holding that the plaintiff-appellants are entitled to get declaration of right, title and interest and also for recovery of khas possession of the suit land by evicting the defendant-respondents. 8. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, passed by the trial court dated 14.5.2004 and 18.5.2004, respectively, the defendant-respondents preferred Title Appeal No. 13/2004 in the court of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Barpeta. The First Appellate Court after hearing both the parties vide judgment dated 18.12.2004 and decree dated 24.12.2004 reversed the findings of the trial court and dismissed the suit of the plaintiff-appellants. 9. On such dismissal of the suit, the plaintiff-appellants have preferred this second appeal, which was admitted on 12.3.2008 by formulating the substantial questions of law as follows : “Whether the suit of the plaintiff can be decreed declaring right, title and interest over the suit land on the basis of Exts. 1, 2 and 3, i.e., the certified copies of the Chitha proved by the Lot Mondal reflecting the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs as allotment holder of the said land?” 10. Mr. Medhi, learned counsel, appearing for the appellants/plaintiffs submits that the First Appellate Court committed grave error of law in interfering with the findings of the trial court inasmuch as the fact of allotment of the suit land to the plaintiff-appellants which was stated by PW1, Lat Mondal was sufficient enough to prove the case of the plaintiff-appellants that they were allotted the suit land. Thus, Mr. Medhi submits on the ground that the defendant-respondents failed even to show any allotment letter nor anything supporting their case that this particular suit land was allotted to them on the basis of which they are maintaining possession. Mr. Thus, Mr. Medhi submits on the ground that the defendant-respondents failed even to show any allotment letter nor anything supporting their case that this particular suit land was allotted to them on the basis of which they are maintaining possession. Mr. Medhi further submits that in such a situation, the First Appellate Court ought to have given due weightage to Ext. Nos. 2 and 3 more so when PW1, Lat Mondal has affirmed allotment of the said suit land to the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff-appellants and non-consideration of the same in the proper perspective has amounted perversity in the findings so far Issue No. 3 is concerned. Accordingly, Mr. Medhi submits that the substantial question of law so formulated be decided in favour of the appellants. In support of his contention, Mr. Medhi relied upon the decision of this court. In the case of Manmatha Ranjan Trivedi v. Gopal Krishna T.E. Co. (P.) Ltd., 2006 (Supp) GLT 718 it was held as follows : “15 In the instant case, there is no evidence on record that the Chitha mutation affected in favour of the appellant-plaintiff has been objected to before the competent authority. In fact the exhibit Ga and Kha which are copies of the Chitha prepared by the authority discloses the names of both the plaintiff and defendants. Such Chitha is prepared on the basis of actual physical possession by the revenue authority. In the absence of any contrary evidence on record, the order of mutation in favour of the appellant-plaintiff prima facie leaves in his favour of having a prima facie title over the land in question, though by itself title is not established.” 11. Per contra, Mr. Ahmed, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the respondent-defendants submits that findings of the First Appellate Court needs no interference by this court as the Ext. Nos. 1, 2 and 3 cannot be considered as the documents of title in favour of the plaintiff-appellants so far the suit land is concerned. Thus, Mr. Ahmed submits that this second appeal is devoid of merit and/or any substantial questions of law, and as such the same is liable to be dismissed. 12. Considered the submissions of both the learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the parties, perused the judgment and decree passed by both the courts below and the evidence led by both the parties to the suit. PW1 proved the Ext. 12. Considered the submissions of both the learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the parties, perused the judgment and decree passed by both the courts below and the evidence led by both the parties to the suit. PW1 proved the Ext. Nos. 1, 2 and 3 inasmuch as the same pertains to the “hat-chitha” maintained by PW1 as the Lat Mondal. From the said document so exhibited, PW1 from original records under his custody in his cross-examination deposed that the three Dags covering the suit land are Government land and the same was allotted to the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff-appellants. PW1 rightly deposed in his cross-examination that Ext. Nos. 1, 2 and 3 are not the copies of the allotment letters to the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff-appellants. On the other hand, PW1 deposed in his cross-examination that in total 4 Bighas, 1 katha of land was also allotted to the predecessor-in-interest of the defendant-respondent No. 1 but the same was covered by Dag Nos. 167 and 311 and specifically mentioned the said plot of land by quoting definite boundaries covering the said land allotted to the predecessor-in-interest of the defendant-respondent No. 1. PW1 in his cross-examination deposed that presently no one is occupying the suit land. PW2 supported the pleadings in the plaint and in the cross-examination he deposed that he knew about the allotment of the land to the father of the defendant-respondent No. 1 though he deposed that he could not identify the land allotted to the father of the defendant-respondent No. 1. However, in his cross-examination, he admitted with regard to lodging of FIR against the defendant-respondents wherein he stated that the defendant-respondents were allowed to cultivate on the suit land and he was deprived from the share of agricultural produce arising out of the said suit land. DW1 who is the defendant-respondent No. 1 himself in his cross-examination deposed that he does not know the land described in the schedule of the plaint and further deposed that he has no objection if a decree is passed in favour of the plaintiff-appellants so far the suit land described in the plaint is concerned. 13. DW1 who is the defendant-respondent No. 1 himself in his cross-examination deposed that he does not know the land described in the schedule of the plaint and further deposed that he has no objection if a decree is passed in favour of the plaintiff-appellants so far the suit land described in the plaint is concerned. 13. On the face of the findings of the trial court, the First Appellate Court while reversing the issue No. 3 held that the plaintiff-appellants failed to show any allotment order and PW2 deposed that they have no possession upon the suit land and as such it was held that mere mention of name of Gojendra Ojah in the draft chitha cannot give any right of the suit land to the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff-appellants and as such the said Ext. Nos. 1,2 and 3 cannot be treated for collateral purpose. The First Appellate Court observed that the suit land is in possession of the defendant-respondents and PW2 lodged FIR against the defendant-respondent No. 1 claiming adhi (rent/share on agricultural produce) on the suit land and as such finally held that the plaintiff failed to prove that they are possessing the land through rayat as no evidence was adduced by the plaintiffs in this respect. 14. The First Appellate Court while appreciating the evidence on record, failed to consider the cross-examination of DW1 wherein he has specifically deposed that he does not know the suit land belonging to him and the further deposition of said DW1 that if the decree is passed in favour of the plaintiff-appellants with respect to the suit land described in the plaint, he has no objection. 15. Now considering the Ext. Nos. 1, 2 and 3, the deposition of PW1 and the cross-examination of PW2 about lodging of the FIR and coupled with the cross-examination of DW1 as referred to hereinabove, it goes to show that the defendant-respondent No. 1 is very much aware that the suit land was allotted to the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff-appellants and in consequence to that they have been maintaining possession. The First Appellate Court ought to have come to the preponderance that the suit land was allotted to the predecessor in interest of the plaintiff-appellants and declared possession/possessory right of the plaintiff-appellants considering the cross examination of DW1 so far his consent is concerned in granting the decree to the plaintiff-appellants. The First Appellate Court ought to have come to the preponderance that the suit land was allotted to the predecessor in interest of the plaintiff-appellants and declared possession/possessory right of the plaintiff-appellants considering the cross examination of DW1 so far his consent is concerned in granting the decree to the plaintiff-appellants. Further taking into consideration of the decision of this court (supra) and on consideration of the disputes wherein both the parties claimed the suit land on similar nature of allotment by the Government, Exts. 1, 2 and 3 are given due weightage as the defendant-respondent No. 1 had failed to produce the said exhibit as the one of the plaintiff-appellant and concluded the title in favour of the appellants. Accordingly, the substantial question of law answered in favour of the plaintiff-appellants. 16. It is clarified that the title of the plaintiff-appellants is with respect to the status as an allottee of the suit land only and not beyond that and appellants are entitled to the consequential relief flowing from the said status, i.e., the plaintiff-appellants are entitled to possess the suit land by ejecting the defendant-respondents. Accordingly, this second appeal is disposed of by setting aside the judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court impugned in this second appeal. 17. Send back the LCR. 18. No order as to costs.