JUDGMENT AND ORDER : Prasanta Kumar Deka, J. 1. Heard Mr. M.H. Rajborbhuiyan, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants. Also heard Mr. S.P. Choudhury, learned Government advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. The plaintiffs/appellants preferred Title Suit No.19/1994 in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) No.1 Hailakandi against the respondent state for declaration of their right, title and interest over the suit land covered under encroachment Case No.1/1992-93 and permanent injunction restraining the respondent/state from evicting the plaintiffs/appellants. It is the case of the plaintiffs/appellants that they were the owners of 32Bs of land covered by 2nd RS patta No.2 Dag No.2, 4, 5 of Boijayantipur Mouza Part-1, Hailakandi which was washed away by the river Katakhal the said land reappeared. The predecessors of the plaintiffs/appellants had been possessing the suit land continuously by constructing dwelling house etc. and acquired right, title and interest over the suit land. The plaintiffs/appellants prayed for settlement of the suit land in their respective names but the defendants/respondents instead of granting settlement, carved out new 2nd R.S. Patta No. 329/331/332 and new dag No.6/321 and started encroachment Case No.1/1992-93 and issued notice under Rule 18 of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulations on 16th July, 1992 directing them to vacate the land and threatened to demolish the structures. It is also pleaded that the defendants/respondents realized touzi bahi revenue from them. Apprehending demolition of house and standing crops, plaintiffs/appellants filed the present suit with the prayers hereinabove stated. 3. The defendants/respondents contested the suit by filing written statement thereby raising the plea of non maintainability of the suit inasmuch as, the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit and further denied the long continuous possession of the plaintiffs/appellants or realization of touzi revenue from them. It is the defence of the defendants/respondents that the plaintiffs/appellants are habitual encroachers of the suit land and it was further pleaded that they were evicted in encroachment Case No.5/1958-59 from the suit land under Dag No.6/320 and the appeal No.52/1958-59 against the said encroachment case was rejected on 26.12.1960 by the Deputy Commissioner, Cachar. Subsequent to that, another re-encroachment Case No.15/1964-65 was started against the plaintiffs/appellants and their ejectment was ordered on 13.11.1964 and the subsequent appeal was also rejected on 28.11.1964. Subsequent to that, another re-encroachment Case No.15/1964-65 was started against the plaintiffs/appellants and their ejectment was ordered on 13.11.1964 and the subsequent appeal was also rejected on 28.11.1964. Thereafter, the SDO, Hailakandi reserved 11B 18K 4C's of land under Dag No.6/321 for grazing ground and 2 Bigha 1 Chataks of land which was kept reserved as the "gobat". Subsequent thereto demarcation pillars were raised. Even after such demarcation, the plaintiffs/appellants preferred appeal No.4/1979-80 which was also rejected. Thereafter the plaintiffs instituted Title Suit No.18/1998 in the court of Munsiff No.1, Hailakandi which was dismissed for default. Thereafter, Mudras Ali and others applied to the Deputy Commissioner, Cachar for giving effect to the order of the Revenue court. Objection was raised by the plaintiffs which was rejected by the ADC, Hailakandi and thereafter encroachment Case No.1/1992-93 was started. It was urged before the learned trial court that the plaintiffs/appellants have filed the suit misleading the actual facts and as such the defendants/respondents prayed for dismissal of the suit. On the basis of the pleadings, the learned trial court framed the following issues. "1. Is there any cause of action for the suit? 2. Is the suit maintainable? 3. Is the suit bad for multifarious-ness? 4. Is the suit barred under section 154 of A.L.L.R.? 5. Is the suit bad for non compliance of notice under section 80, CPC? 6. Is the suit undervalued? 7. Whether the plaintiffs have exclusive possession and right over the suit land? 8. To what relief or reliefs the plaintiffs are entitled? Addl. Issues 1. Is the suit barred by res-judicata in view of dismissal of earlier suit No. TS 18 of 1988? 2. Is the possession of plaintiffs are adverse to that of the defendants?" 4. The plaintiffs/appellants adduced three witnesses and on the other hand the defendants/respondents adduced only one witness. The learned trial court after hearing the parties vide its judgment and decree dated 16.02.2002 decreed the suit. While discussing issue Nos. 4 and 7, the learned trial court came to the finding that the plaintiffs/appellants were in continuous physical possession over the suit land for the past 15 years which was admitted by the DW-1. Putting the burden on the defendants/respondents, the learned trial court held that the defendant side failed to show any document to substantiate their claim that the plaintiff/appellants were duly evicted. Putting the burden on the defendants/respondents, the learned trial court held that the defendant side failed to show any document to substantiate their claim that the plaintiff/appellants were duly evicted. Considering the revenue receipts exhibited by the plaintiffs/appellants, the learned trial court came to the findings that revenue receipts supports to the said fact of uninterrupted possession of the plaintiffs/appellants. It was also held that the original suit land was alleviated by river Katakhal and as such it was held that the plaintiffs/appellants were original owners having possession of the land covered by disputed patta. Giving much stress on the submission of the plaintiffs/appellants that they openly constructed houses over the suit land, the learned trial court made a presumption that such acts created a bona fide right, title and interest over the suit land. The duration of occupation was considered by the learned trial court in the light of the provisions of the Limitation Act and indirectly the learned trial court declared the right, title and interest on the basis of the long possession of the plaintiffs/respondents over the suit land. After discussing so, the learned trial court gave its findings that bar under Section 154 of the Assam Land Revenue Regulation has no effect to the instant suit and decided the said issue in favour of the plaintiffs/appellants. 5. Being aggrieved, the defendants/appellants preferred Title Appeal No.3/2002 in the court of learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Hailakandi. The said first appellate court vide its judgment and decree dated 08.04.2004 reversed the findings of the trial court and dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs/appellants. The said judgment passed by the First Appellate Court is put under challenge in this Second appeal. The second appeal was admitted on 17.11.2004 on the following substantial questions of law. "1. Whether the finding of learned lower appellate court is right and proper in declaring that the suit is barred by Section 154 of the Assam Land Revenue Regulation while setting aside the judgment and decree of the learned trial court declaring plaintiffs' acquired an indefeasible right, title and interest over the suit land based on the admitted facts that the appellants/plaintiffs have been in continuous possession for last 50/60 years over the suit land? 2. 2. Whether on the face of the evidence of DW-1 regarding the continuous possession of plaintiffs over the suit land, the findings of the learned lower appellant court is not perverse that the appellants/plaintiffs are not in possession of the suit land? 3. Whether mere mutation of the suit land mentioning government khas land deprives the appellants/plaintiffs who have been in continuous possession thereof for last 50/60 years with permanent structure thereon and the respondents having realized Touzi revenues from them?" 6. Mr. Borbhuiyan in support of the claim of the plaintiffs/appellants submits that the findings of the trial court was based on the material piece of evidence on record. The revenue receipts on the basis of which the trial court gave its decision with respect to the uninterrupted long and continuous possession of the plaintiffs/appellants is a finding based on the evidence laid before the court. Moreover as held by the trial court that the plaintiffs/appellants openly constructed over the suit land itself goes to show that the plaintiffs/appellants had been possessing the suit land to the adverse interest of the Government and in such a situation there is no bar in granting the settlement to the plaintiffs/appellants which is not at all unknown to the rules of settlement as prescribed in the Assam Land Revenue Regulation. Mr. Borbhuiyan also submits that the predecessor in interest of the plaintiffs/appellants in fact, purchase the suit land in the year 1889 and against such a backdrop, if the plaintiffs/appellants are thrown out from the suit land it would cause serious prejudice to them. Accordingly, Mr. Borbhuiyan also submitted that a chance be given to adduce such piece of evidence by the plaintiffs/appellants. 7. Coming to the finding of the First Appellate Court, Mr. Borbhuiyan submits that the learned First Appellate Court wrongly appreciated the material piece of evidence on record. The finding that the plaintiffs/appellants miserably failed to adduce any convincing evidence in support of their claim of possession is a perverse finding inasmuch as the said revenue receipts taken into consideration by the trial court, itself is sufficient to show the possession of the plaintiffs/respondents over the suit land. Further, Mr. The finding that the plaintiffs/appellants miserably failed to adduce any convincing evidence in support of their claim of possession is a perverse finding inasmuch as the said revenue receipts taken into consideration by the trial court, itself is sufficient to show the possession of the plaintiffs/respondents over the suit land. Further, Mr. Borbhuiyan submits that the burden cast upon the plaintiffs/appellants, by the First Appellate Court, that they failed to establish that their suit land is covered by the original RS Patta No.2 or the same had reappeared is wrong, as it is not disputed by the defendants/respondents that the suit land originally was not covered under RS Patta No.2 by any piece of material evidence. With regard to the bar under Section 154 of Assam Land Revenue Regulation, Mr. Borbhuiyan submits that the matter is purely a declaration of the title of the plaintiffs/appellants and that too on the basis of the materials already placed before the trial court from the custody of the plaintiffs/appellants and the dispute is not for fresh settlement. In fact, the matter is for declaration of the title which the plaintiffs/appellants had already been endowed with and derived from their predecessors in interest and that too on the strength of purchase by registered sale deed in the year 1889. So the question involved in the suit is with respect to the declaration of the title of the plaintiffs/respondents which they had already possessed and have been possessing but for, the actions of the defendants/respondents the same has been clouded. So, there is no question of bar under Section 154 of the Assam Land Revenue Regulations. Accordingly, Mr. Borbhuiyan submits that the second appeal be allowed. 8. Per contra, Mr. S.P. Choudhury appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that the findings of the First Appellate Court cannot be unsettled inasmuch as the First Appellate Court after considering the materials on record came to the correct finding that the plaintiffs/appellants had failed to discharge their burden as required under section 101 of the Indian Evidence Act. 8. Per contra, Mr. S.P. Choudhury appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that the findings of the First Appellate Court cannot be unsettled inasmuch as the First Appellate Court after considering the materials on record came to the correct finding that the plaintiffs/appellants had failed to discharge their burden as required under section 101 of the Indian Evidence Act. It is further submitted that the plaintiffs/appellants failed to show before the courts below that they are claiming a status which was earlier endowed to them and to their predecessor in interest on the strength of the purchase and the action on the part of the respondents had clouded the status which they have been enjoying prior to initiation of the encroachment case. It is submitted further that the respondents/defendants had taken up for the eviction of plaintiffs/appellants under the proper rules as prescribed under the Assam Land Revenue Regulation and the Civil court cannot throttle the process eviction of the plaintiffs/respondents by filing this civil suit. There is specific bar under Section 154 of the Assam Land Revenue Regulation and as such the learned First Appellate court has rightly passed the judgment. Accordingly, Mr. Choudhury submits that the second appeal is liable to be dismissed. 9. Considered the submissions of both the learned counsels. Mr. Choudhury in order to support his argument relies Moosa (Md) and Anr. v. State of Assam and Ors reported in 2007 (1) GLT 400. From the pleadings of the plaintiffs/appellants it is very much clear and apparent that being aggrieved at the initiation of the encroachment Case No.1/1992-93 by the respondents/defendants they have come before the Civil Court seeking for a relief of declaration of their right, title and interest over the suit land i.e. the land from which they are proposed to be evicted by the defendants/respondents. It is also apparent that the plaintiffs/appellants had sought for the relief of permanent injunction thereby restraining the respondents/defendants from evicting them from the suit land. In order to substantiate their claim, there is no material piece of evidence in support of the claim of plaintiffs/appellants for title over the suit land. The revenue receipt which the trial court had considered, in order to bring home the submission of the plaintiffs/appellants in support of their contention of long possession, are nothing but the receipt of the fine paid by the plaintiffs/respondents for possessing the Government land. The revenue receipt which the trial court had considered, in order to bring home the submission of the plaintiffs/appellants in support of their contention of long possession, are nothing but the receipt of the fine paid by the plaintiffs/respondents for possessing the Government land. The same goes to show that respondent state imposed penalty on plaintiffs/appellants for the wrongful possession of the suit land. However, that cannot be concluded that the Government had accepted their possession to be lawful one. It is the defence taken by the respondents/defendants that the said land, from which the plaintiffs/appellants are supposed to be ejected, is the land covered by gazing reserve and in such a situation the Government has every right to eject the plaintiffs/appellants. Behind the said backdrop the plaintiffs/appellants had sought for the reliefs of declaration of right, title and interest and permanent injunction. 10. In 2007 (1) GLT 400 (supra), this court in para 20 held as follows: "20. The above aspects of the matter, on being agitated by the appellant in the first appeal as erroneous and contrary to the evidence on records, the first appellate court has reversed the findings of the trial court in respect of issue No. 1 and 5. Section 154(2) of the above quoted Regulation clearly says that jurisdiction in respect of matters enumerated under Section 154(1) shall rest with the revenue authorities only. Section 154(1) (c) bars the jurisdiction of civil court in matters relating to formation of the records of right, or the preparation, signing or alteration of a document contained therein. Section 154(1) exempts the jurisdiction of civil court relating to questions as to the validity or effect of any settlement, or as to whether the conditions of any settlement are still in force." The ratio of the said decision, which is similar with regard to the issue before this Court, can well be concluded that the trial court by granting the decree in favour of the plaintiffs/appellants converted itself into the revenue court, thereby declaring the right, title and interest of the plaintiffs/appellants over the suit land on the face of the Encroachment case No.1/1992-93. This cannot be permitted, inasmuch as Section 154 of the Assam Land Revenue Regulation is specific, that no Civil Court shall exercise jurisdiction in any question as to the validity or affect of any settlement or as to whether the conditions of any settlement are still in force. 11. As already submitted and considered by this Court, that the plaintiffs/appellants had failed to show that prior to filing of the suit and initiation of the Encroachment case No.1/1992-93 they enjoyed the status of "land holder" as defined under Assam Land Revenue Regulation and the action of the respondents/defendants had clouded their status of "land holder" with respect to the suit land, this Court comes to the conclusion that the findings of the First Appellate Court that the instant suit is barred under Section 154 of the Assam Land Revenue Regulation is upheld. Accordingly, the substantial question of law No.1 is decided against the plaintiffs/appellants. 12. With regard to the substantial question of law No.2, this Court finds no perversity in the finding of the First Appellate Court and regarding the substantial question No.3, the same is also decided against the appellants. It is pertinent to mention here that the plaintiffs/appellants preferred an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC for adducing additional evidence and vide order dated 14.07.2015, the appellants were allowed to file application seeking amendment of the plaint, inasmuch as, without pleadings no additional evidence could be permitted. Finally, vide order dated 07.04.2016, the said application was closed as the same was not pressed by the appellants/petitioners. 13. Accordingly, this second appeal is dismissed. 14. Send back the LCR. 15. No costs.