GOKUL CHANDRA DAS Vs. SATISH CHANDRA DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred by the appellants against the judgment and decree dated 3.12.86 decree signed on 8.1.87 passed by the Assistant District Judge, Barpeta in title Appeal No. 31 of 1985 setting aside the judgment and order dated 22.5.85 and decree dated 22.5.85 in Title Suit No. 15 of 1984 passed by Shri B.Barman, Munsiff No. 2, Barpeta.

(2.) The opposite party as plaintif filed the Title Suit No. 15 of 1994 for declaration of Title and recovery of Khas possession contending in the plaint that he got settlement of the land measuring about 7 Bighas and had been dispossessed by the defendant (Appellant) on 43.83 and took away mustard seeds etc. grown by him and therefore filed the suit as staled above. The appellants/defendants contested the suit, denying all along the title of the plaintiff opposite party as well as his possession and took the plea of adverse possession over the land in their written statement as well as in their evidence. The trial court dismissed the suit and on appeal the lower appellate court decreed the suit by reversing the judgment and decree of the trial court. Hence this appeal preferred by the defendant. As many as seven issues were framed and for the decision of this court issue No. 4 is material which has been quoted as below :

(3.) Admittedly opposite party/plaintiffs case for recovery of possession on the basis of title which he attempted to establish in plaint that "many years back" as a landless person he got allotment and possession of the suit land from the Government by paying revenue regularly possessing the land by cultivating or by his own people. Admittedly no specific date of allotment and possession has been given nor any allotment order has been filed and the chitra (Ext. 1) produced by him has not shown any date of allotment. Regarding possession no witness in evidence adduced by him, Mandal's evidence as P.W. 2 also proved defendants possession. Evidence of P.W. 1 (Plaintiff) failed to prove that he was in possession till dispossessed by defendants by engaging one Akbar and then by one Karim and these two persons were not examined. After appreciating the evidence on record the trial court rejected the claim of title. The first appellate Court's reappreciation of evidence is not sustainable on the ground that discussion of evidence on record by the lower appellate court found mis-appreciation of evidence regarding title. The finding of the first appellate court was that the documents such as certified copy of Jamabandi (Ext.l ( and land revenue receipts (Ext.2(l) to (7) and certified copy regarding demarcation of boundary of the suit land by Revenue Authority, are the documentary evidence which established the title of the plaintiff. In view of a series of decisions the established position of law is that claim of title on the basis of Jamabandi and Chitha, records of right which has no evidentiary value are not proof of title.