The presumption of correctness of entries in the Raiyati Khatian and the onus of proof on disputing parties are crucial in determining possessory rights.

Iqbal Ahmed Ansari, J.

1. This second appeal has arisen out of judgment and decree, dated 28.8.2002, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nagaon in Title Appeal No. 48 of 2000, dismissing the appeal and affirming thereby the judgment and decree, dated 30.11.2000, passed, in Title Suit No. 73 of 1993, by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hojai, Sankardev Nagar, decreeing the plaintiff's suit for declaration of his possessory right and continuation of possession over the suit land.

2. The appeal was admitted for hearing on the following three substantial questions of law:

1. Whether a Khatian holder obtaining the Khatian long after purchase of the suit land by a person may succeed in obtaining a declaration of tenancy right within the meaning of the Assam (Temporary Settled Areas) Tenancy Act, 1971, against the purchaser without proving the required formality in the matter of obtaining the Khatian or without proving the legal merit of the Khatian?

2. Whether the Civil Court may act upon a Khatian not granted inter parties for the purpose of giving the benefit of the concerned tenancy Act?

3. Whether in the given facts and circumstances of the case, the presumption of correctness of the Khatian could be raised and made without examining the Revenue records and/or the concerned Revenue Officer?

3. The case of the plaintiffs may, in brief, be set out as follows:

The suit land, originally, belonged to Gajen Kalita, who held a periodic patta in respect of the suit land. For more than twenty years, the plaintiff remained in possession of the suit land and enjoyed the usufructs thereof as cultivators. In course of time, Raiyati Khatian No. 58 was issued, on 28.12.81, in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the suit land and from that day, the plaintiff's occupied the suit land as a statutory tenant and used the suit land, in the capacity of a tenant, within the meaning of the Assam (Temporary Settled Areas) Tenancy Act, 1971 (in short, the Act of 1971), under the said Gajen Kalita. In order to grab the suit land, the defendants made several attempts to dispossess the plaintiff. The plaintiff filed several criminal cases against the defendants in order to protect his interest and, eventually, he instituted a proceeding, under Section 145 Cr. P.C., seeking declaration of his possession over the suit land; but the learned Executive Magistrate, on 20.1.88, directed the plaintiff to take recourse to the Civil Court for relief. The plaintiff accordingly instituted the suit seeking, inter alia, declaration of his possessory rights as well as confirmation of his possession over the suit land and permanent injunction, etc.

4. The suit was resisted by the principal-defendant Nos. 1 and 2 (i.e., the appellants herein) by filing their written statement, their case being, briefly stated, thus Tularam Kalita and Gajen Kalita were owners of the suit land. By two registered sale deeds, the contesting defendants had purchased the entire suit land from the said two brothers and, upon purchase of the suit land, these defendants also received possession of the suit land and since then, these defendants remained in possession and enjoyment thereof. These defendants, then, sought for mutation of the suit land in their favour and also for partition thereof, which was also allowed by the revenue authorities. In fact, in the revenue proceeding for partition, which gave rise to NRK Case No. 316/86, the learned Additional Deputy Commissioner passed an order, on 14.5.90, granting mutation and partition in favour of these defendants and in the order, so passed, it was made clear that the plaintiff had not right over the suit land. The defendants accordingly sought for dismissal of the suit.

5. The learned trial Court framed the following issues for determination:

1. Whether there is cause of action for the suit?

2. Whether the suit is barred by provisions of Assam (Temporary Settled Areas) Tenancy Act, 1971?

3. Whether the plaintiff has any r