JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. N Dhar, learned counsel for the appellants. Also heard Ms. B Devi, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The respondents herein instituted TS No.20/2000 in the Court of learned Civil Judge, Jr. Division No.2 Hailakandi praying for a declaration that the defendants have got no right, title and interest over the suit land and further declaring that the plaintiffs are the owner and possessor of the suit land with further declaration restraining the defendants from entering the suit land. The suit land was described as a land measuring 1bigha, 16 kathas, 6 chattak of 2nd RS Patta No.243, Dag No.172 of Ph. Hailakandi, Mouza Bowarghat Part I. 2. The plaintiffs in paragraph 1 of the plaint has stated that the suit land originally belonged to one Mamed Tahir, S/o. Lt. Habis Ali, Abdul Noor, S/o. Lt. Juaid Ali and Irshad Ali, Son of Lt. Kala Mia of village Bowarghat and the plaintiffs purchased it from them through a registered sale deed dated 04.01.1960. In paragraph 16 it is stated that the defendant No.2 having granted a few lacs of rupees for construction of the road starting from the PWD road towards the east connecting the river Dhaleswari to the west, the defendants No.3 to 5 started construction of a new road over the dag No.172 which is the suit land. In the circumstances, the plaintiffs have instituted the suit. 3. The defendants No.3, 4 and 5 in their written statement denied that the suit land originally belonged to Mamed Tahir, S/o. Lt. Habis Ali, Abdul Noor, S/o. Lt. Juaid Ali and Irshad Ali, Son of Lt. Kala Mia. The plea of the plaintiffs that the defendant No.2 had provided few lacs of rupees for improving the panchayat road was also denied. The defendants No.1 and 2 in their written statement in paragraph 12 had taken a stand that it was not denied that the members of the local public of the adjoining villages constructed a road over dag No.172. 4. In the T.S.No.20/2000, the following issues were framed: (i) Whether the suit is maintainable in facts and law? (ii) Whether the plaintiffs have right, title and interest and possession over the suit land? (iii) To what relief(s), the parties are entitled? 5. 4. In the T.S.No.20/2000, the following issues were framed: (i) Whether the suit is maintainable in facts and law? (ii) Whether the plaintiffs have right, title and interest and possession over the suit land? (iii) To what relief(s), the parties are entitled? 5. The learned trial court while deciding the issue No.2 as regards the right, title and interest of the plaintiffs had rejected the exhibit-5 sale deed dated 04.01.1960 relied upon by the plaintiffs by arriving at the conclusion that the predecessor-in-interest of the vendor of the said sale deed had sold out the land, in question to one Gurucharan Das through auction sale and, therefore, the vendor did not have a title over the land. Accordingly, the issue No.2 as regards right, title and interest of the plaintiffs was decided against them. Therefore, the issue No.3 as regards entitlement of any relief of the plaintiffs also stood rejected. 6. On appeal by the plaintiffs, being T.A No.18/2004, the learned Civil Judge (Sr.Div) Hailakandi in his judgment dated 05.01.2005 had decided the issue No.2 partly in favour of the plaintiffs. The exhibit-5 sale deed dated 04.01.1960 was rejected by the learned appellate court for the reason that only the xerox copies of the sale deed was exhibited and it was not admissible in evidence. But at the sametime, the learned appellate court relied upon exhibit-9 and 10 and having appreciated the same arrived at the conclusion that the plaintiffs could prove their possession over the suit land by virtue of exhibit-9 and 10. Exhibit-9 is the order dated 22.06.1967 of the Sub-Divisional Officer (Judicial) Hailakandi in MR Case No.72/1965 between Mahmud Ali and Rashid Ali and 8 Others under Section 145 Cr.P.C. By the said order it was provided that the second party therein i.e. Rashid Ali and 8 others will remain in possession of the land, in question, until they are dispossessed in due course of law. The said order was passed upon the records being received back from the court of the learned Munshiff containing the decision as to the possession of the land, in question between the respective parties. Exhibit-10 is the order dated 04.03.1966 of the learned Munshiff Hailakandi in MC No.41/1965. The said order was passed upon the records being received back from the court of the learned Munshiff containing the decision as to the possession of the land, in question between the respective parties. Exhibit-10 is the order dated 04.03.1966 of the learned Munshiff Hailakandi in MC No.41/1965. MC No.41/1965 was registered on a reference being made under Section 146(1) Cr.PC., as regards the possession of the land, in question, between the respective parties i.e. Mahmud Ali being the 1st party and Rashid Ali being the second party. 7. From the order dated 04.03.1966 of the learned Munshiff Hailakandi, it can be ascertained that the land, in question in the said proceeding was covered by II RS Patta No.243 under dag No.172. By the said order, the learned Munshiff Hailakandi provided that the second party therein namely Abdul Rashid and Abdul Noor were in possession of the land, in question, on the relevant day. 8. We have noticed that the plaintiffs in paragraph 1 of the plaint had claimed their title over the suit land, amongst others, from Abdul Noor. From the order dated 04.03.1966 of the learned Munshiff Hailakandi it can be ascertained that the possession of the land was declared also in favour of Abdul Noor, although from the said order nothing can be inferred about the title of Abdul Noor over the land, in question. 9. While determining the issue No.2, in the instant proceeding, the learned appellate court relied upon the exhibit-10 order dated 04.03.1966 of the learned Munshiff Hailakandi in MC No.41/1965 and arrived at its conclusion that although the plaintiffs had failed to prove their title over the suit land but they have successfully established their possession over the suit land atleast since 1965 onwards. Accordingly by accepting the possession in favour of the plaintiffs without accepting their claim of the title the learned appellate court by its judgment dated 05.01.2005 had decreed the suit declaring the plaintiffs had possession over the land. 10. Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 05.01.2005 of the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Accordingly by accepting the possession in favour of the plaintiffs without accepting their claim of the title the learned appellate court by its judgment dated 05.01.2005 had decreed the suit declaring the plaintiffs had possession over the land. 10. Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 05.01.2005 of the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Div.) Hailakandi in TA No.18/2004, the present regular second appeal has been preferred and while admitting the appeal, the following substantial question of law was framed: “Whether the learned lower appellate court erred in law in declaring the suit of the plaintiffs only on the basis of their possession, they having failed to establish the factum of purchase thereof, by proving the sale deed.” 11. We have carefully examined the substantial question of law framed. As already noticed the appellate court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs only in respect of possession, while rejecting their claim of right and title over the suit land. The decree being limited only to possession with a rejection of the claim of title and interest, we are of the view that the substantial question of law would have to be answered that as there was no declaration of right, title and interest over the suit land, there may not be a requirement at this stage for the plaintiffs to establish the factum of purchase of the suit land. Purchase of the suit land if proved would have led to a declaration of the right title and interest of the plaintiffs over the suit land. As already discussed hereinabove, the plaintiffs by virtue of exhibit-10 order dated 04.03.1966 of the learned Munshiff Hailakandi in MC No.41/1965 could prove their possession over the suit land and no further material had been referred to by the appellants which would require the court to arrive at a conclusion different from the said conclusion as regards the possession. 12. In view of the above, we do not find any merit in this regular second appeal warranting interference of the judgment dated 05.01.2005 of the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Div.) Hailakandi in TA No.18/2004. 13. Mr. N Dhar, learned counsel for the appellants have raised an issue that the plaintiffs having been unable to prove their title over the land has no right to continue with their possession over the suit land, more particularly, when a public road is passing through the suit land. Div.) Hailakandi in TA No.18/2004. 13. Mr. N Dhar, learned counsel for the appellants have raised an issue that the plaintiffs having been unable to prove their title over the land has no right to continue with their possession over the suit land, more particularly, when a public road is passing through the suit land. Such stand on the part of the appellants in our view would be an issue that may arise between the parties before an appropriate forum in accordance with law. 14. The appeal stands answered in the manner indicated above. 15. Send back the LCR. 16. This regular second appeal, accordingly, stands disposed of.