Entries in revenue records do not create title; actual possession and supporting evidence are crucial for title claims leading to injunctions.

JUDGMENT :

Khatim Reza, J.

Heard Mr. Uday Sharan Singh, learned G.P. 19 for the appellants and Mr. P.N. Shahi, learned senior counsel for the respondent nos. 1.1, 1.2 & 1.3.

2. This Second Appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 31.03.2017 passed by the learned District Judge, Gaya in Title Appeal No. 24 of 2011 whereby, the learned lower Appellate Court has reversed the judgment and decree dated 05.02.2011 passed by the learned Sub Judge- III, Gaya, in Title Suit No. 161 of 2009/ 383 of 2004.

3. In the present Second Appeal, the following substantial questions of law have been formulated for determination:-

(i) Whether the finding recorded by the learned appellate court is based on completely wrong reading of document namely, Ext. 10 (regarding purchased deed of the respondents as well as Ext.12 (regarding its nature) making the finding perverse?

(ii) Whether the learned appellate court has failed to consider that the suit filed before the learned trial court was barred by limitation?

(iii) Whether while reversing judgment and decree of the learned trial court, the finding of the learned appellate court suffers from perversity for not meeting the reasons given by the learned trial court and thus not following the provisions under Order 41 Rule 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure?

4. In order to gauge the matter in its correct perspective, it is necessary to briefly re-state what the suit entails. Originally, the suit was filed by Sanjay Kumar who was Power of Attorney holder of Shivnath Prasad Gupta @ Bhola Prasad son of Kedarnath Prasad filed Suit No. 161 of 2009/383 of 2004 for declaration of right, title, interest and possession over the Schedule III lands and also for confirmation of possession. The plaintiffs- respondents has also sought relief for permanent injunction restraining the defendants not to interfere with the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land. Further, in the alternative, the plaintiff sought relief that if the plaintiff is found dispossessed during the pendency of the suit, the possession be restored through the process of Court.

5. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, is that the land of Khata No. 49 bearing Cadestral Survey Plot Nos. 570, 752, 780, 784, 858, 859 and 861 measuring 42 acres 97 decimals and Khata No. 751, 753, 781, 782, 783 and 857 measuring 15 acres 91 decimals, situated at village- Karmani, Tauzi No. 4548, Thana No. 793 was recorded in the cadestral record of rights as “Gairmazarua Mokararidar” with respect to C.S. Khata No. 49 whereas the land of C.S. Khata No. 50 was recorded as “Gairmazarua Aam”. The ex-landlords namely, Abdul Aziz, and others made land of C.S. Khata No. 50 as culturable and Bakasht land. Further case of the plaintiff is that, Babu Kamta Prasad, one of the ex-landlord of the said village brought a partition suit bearing Partition Suit No. 22 of 1933 before the court of Sub- Judge -III, Gaya against the Abdul Wahid Khan and others son of late Abdul Aziz and Mostt. Mujibul Nissa (widow of late Abdul Aziz) for partition of land for allotment of separate takhta to the plaintiffs with respect to C.S. Khata No. 49 and 50. On contest, suit was decreed in favour of said Babu Kamta Prasad and on the basis of the report of Pleader Commissioner, final decree was prepared whereby lands under C.S. Khata No. 49, Plot Nos. 752, 784, 780 and 782 measuring 13 acres 4 decimals and under C.S. Khata No. 50, Plot No. 782 measuring 84 decimals was allotted to Babu Kamta Prasad accordingly, they