JUDGMENT

1. This appeal is directed against judgment dated 14.7.1998 of the learned Single Judge of the Gauhati High Court whereby he dismissed the second appeal filed by the Appellants against the judgment and decree passed by the Assistant District Judge, Barpeta (hereinafter referred to as "the lower appellate Court") in a suit filed by Balindra Narayan Adhikari (predecessor of the Respondents) for declaration and recovery of possession of the suit property i.e., land measuring OB-2K-10L situated at Sorbhog town under Domoka Saka Bousi Mouza.

2. The suit was dismissed by learned Munsif, Barpeta (hereinafter described as "the trial Court") on the ground that the Plaintiff had not produced any document to prove his title and the entries made in revenue records were not sufficient for declaring him as owner of the suit property.

3. During the pendency of the appeal, the Plaintiff and the Defendant died and their legal representatives were brought on record. After analysing the pleadings and the documents produced by the parties, the lower appellate Court held that the Plaintiff-Respondents have been able to prove their title. The lower appellate Court noted that as per the certified copy of Jamabandi Exhibit 1, Patta No. 329 containing dag Nos. 1310 and 1311 stood in the joint names of Balindra Narayan Adhikari (original Plaintiff) and Manomohan Dutta (original Defendant); that as per the endorsement in the remarks column of Exhibit Gha, the name of Balindra Narayan Adhikari was mutated in respect of the suit land measuring 2 kathas 10 lechas covered by new dag Nos. 1310 and 1311 along with Chandra Kumar Choudhury and Deb Kumar Chowdhury by right of purchase in terms of A.S.O.'s order dated 6.12.1962. The lower appellate Court then proceeded to observe:

... It is not the case of the Defendants that these endorsement in the record of rights are erroneous. It is true that entry in the record of right does not create or extinguishes title and such entries are rebutable. There is not an iota of evidence to show that Exts. 1 kha, ga and gha are erroneous. It must not be forgotten that the original Plaintiff and the original Defendant had since expired during pendency of the suit and the suit has been contested by their legal heirs. So no fault can be found with the Plaintiffs even if they failed to prove or produce the original sale deed in respect of a suit land. In the absence of any evidence that the entries in the record of rights were erroneous. I am inclined to accept the entries in the record of rights as correct. As per Ext. kha one Rati Kanta Choudhury was the original owner and pattadar of the suit patta No. 251 which corresponds to new patta No. 329. This new patta No. 329 relates to suit dag Nos. 1310 and 1311 as apparent from Ext. 1. Basanta Kumar Choudhury (d.w.3) is the son of said Rati Kanta Choudhury since then. In his evidence in examination-in-chief, he attempted to show that the suit land along with Borne other land was sold to the Defendants in the year 1957/1958 by their brothers Ramesh Choudhury, Chandra Kumar Choudhury and Hiranya Kr. Choudhury. In his cross-examination he has however, pleaded his ignorance whether his two other brothers Chandra Kumar Choudhury and Deb Kumar Choudhury had sold the suit land to the Plaintiff Balindra Narayan Adhikari. Then endorsement appearing in the Chitha Ext. gha shows that the suit land measuring 2 Kathas 10 lechas was mutated in the name of the Plaintiff Balindra Narayan Adhikari along with Chandra Kr. Choudhury and Deb Kumar Choudhury by right of purchase as on 6.12.62. This very endorsement appearing in Ext. gha and the plea of ignorance of D.W.3 about the sale of the suit land by their two brothers go to prove that the suit land was actually purchased by Balindra Narayan Adhikari. The trouble in fact, arose after the death of the original owner and pattadar Rati Kanta Choudhury. In his evidence, D.W.3 who is one of the sons of late Rati Kanta Choudhuri clearly stated tha