The importance of challenging validly executed documents and the presumption of validity attached to registered deeds.

1. The defendants have filed this First Appeal against the Judgment and Decreed dated 05.09.1986 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Jehabanad in title suit No.28 of 1983 whereby the learned trial Court decreed the plaintiff respondent’s suit for declaration of right title and possession over 3.5 decimal of land of plot No.80/889, 80/766 and 766/891.

2. The plaintiff respondent filed the aforesaid title suit No.28 of 1983 for declaration of his right, title and possession over the suit land alleging that the suit originally belonged to Bodhi Kahar, and Sudhan Kahar and they had a common residential house. Their possession was recorded in the cadastral survey record of right. There was private partition between the two brothers after cadastral survey operation and then there was collectorate partition of the Tauji. In the said partition, the survey plot No.80 and 80/766 was remeasured and there were several sub plots. Out of that plot No.766/891 and 80/766 and 80/889 were recorded in the name of Sudhan Kahar in the collectorate partition. Sudhan Kahar orally sold these 3 plots to one Ramnath for Rs.46 and a Sada Ruka was executed on 17 Jeth 1344 Fasli. Later on again Ramnath sold the said land i.e., the suit land for Rs.92 and executed a Sada sale deed in 1957 in favour of the plaintiff and since then the plaintiff is in possession of the house and shop on the suit property and has got electric connection in his name. He is also paying chaukidari tax. In revisional survey no parcha has been granted to the plaintiff. On 2.2.1983, there was a dacoity in the plaintiff’s house and the sada Yadast sale deed of the year 1957 executed by Ramnath was taken away by the dacoit. F.I.R. was lodged. In the said dacoity case, the defendant No.1 and husband of defendant No.3 are also accused and they created fraudulent documents and are claiming falsely the suit land. The plaintiff was found in possession in 145 Cr.P.C. proceeding. The plaintiff received their legal notice dated 10.3.1983 from the defendant alleging that the plaintiff is monthly tenant in the suit house on monthly rent of Rs.60/- as he was inducted as tenant by the previous landlord. As such a cloud has been cast on the title of the plaintiff. Hence the suit was filed.

3. The defendants-appellants appeared and filed a joint contesting written statement. Their main defence is that there was no partition between Bodhi Kahar and Sudhan Kahar. Sudhan Kahar died issueless, therefore, the property devolved on Bodhi Kahar who had only one daughter. Therefore, Bodhi Kahar gifted the suit property by registered gift deed dated 9.6.1947 in favour of Natis, i.e. maternal grand sons. The defendant appellants are the purchasers from the donees by registered sale deed dated 8.3.1982. After purchase, the purchasers came in possession. The plaintiff was inducted as tenant in the suit premises by the vendor of the defendants-appellants. Therefore, the defendants-appellants issued legal notice for evicting the plaintiff. The donees, i.e., the Natis, namely, Fagu Ram, Satan Ram, Kesho Ram, Hari Ram and Kishori Ram had accepted the gift and they were recorded in the revisional survey records of rights. The defendants also denied the story of oral sale by Sudhan to Ramnath or by Ramnath to the plaintiff.

4. On the basis of the aforesaid pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the Court below :-

(i) Is the suit as framed maintainable?

(ii) Has the plaintiff got any cause of action of right to sue?

(iii) Is the suit barred by law of estoppel, waiver acquiescence and limitation?

(iv) Is the suit properly valued and the Court fee paid sufficient?

(v) Has the plaintiff got any right title interest or a possession over the suit property

(vi) Is these any relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties in respect of the suit property?

(vii) Is the plaintiff entitled for any relief claimed for if so, to what extent?

5. After trial, the trial Court recorded