The validity of a periodic patta under the Assam Land and Revenue Regulations creates a presumption of title and possession, which can only be rebutted through specific challenge in appropriate proceedings.

H.N. Sarma, J.

1. Having been suffered with a decree passed by the learned trial court in T.S. No. 1/96 and having lost in the first appellate court in T.A. No. 2/98, the defendants/appellants has filed this Second Appeal.

2. I have heard Mr H. Deka, learned Senior counsel for the appellants/defendants and Mr. A. M. Buzarbarua, learned Counsel for the plaintiffs/respondents.

3. The plaintiffs/respondents instituted the T.S. No. 1/96 in the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division) No. 1, Mangaldoi against the appellants/defendants praying for a decree for declaration of the plaintiffs title and possession over the land under Schedule Ka (2) and Kha (2) land, recovery of khas possession of the Schedule Ka (2) and Kha (2) land by evicting the defendants therefrom and for permanent injunction with other reliefs.

4. In order to get the aforesaid decree the plaintiffs in their plaint, inter alia, pleaded that they are the owners in possession in respect of the schedule land and on 28.8.1990 and 15.9.1990 the defendants dispossessed them from the suit land and having failed to recover possession thereof they have taken recourse to law by filing the suit.

5. The defendants contested the suit by filing written statement and denied the allegation made by the plaintiffs. The defendants in their written statement pleaded that the suit land is the ancestral property and the defendants have got share of the same and as such the plaintiff does not have any right, title and interest over the same. They have also pleaded adverse possession over the suit land.

6. On the basis of the pleading, the learned trial court framed as many as seven issues and out of which the issue No. 5 is - Whether the plaintiffs have right, title and possession over the suit land ? And issue No. 6 is - Whether the defendants are in possession of suit land adversely for more than 12 years ?

7. During the course of trial both the parties adduced oral and documentary evidence and at the conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court answering the issues in favour of the plaintiffs decreed the suit vide judgment and order dated 16.12.1997. The said decree was carried into an appeal, being T.A. No. 2/98 and the learned appellate court independently considering the materials on record dismissed the appeal. Hence this Second Appeal.

8. This appeal was admitted to be heard on the following substantial question of law.

Whether the finding of the learned courts below as regards possession of the plaintiffs are perverse for non-consideration/misleading of evidence on record ?

9. The learned trial court while considering the related Issue No. 5 regarding the right, title and possession of the plaintiff over the suit land considered the Ext.1 which is the Periodic Khiraj Patta No. 76 pertaining to issue standing in the name of the plaintiffs. The learned trial court also considered the Ext. 4 which is the Periodic Khiraj Patta No. 1.33 pertaining to the land under the other schedules in the name of the plaintiffs. Similarly, the Ext. 2 pertains to Jamabandi of Periodic Khiraj Patta No. 133 and Ext. 3 series are the land revenue paying receipts in the name of the plaintiff No. 1 in respect of the disputed land. The learned trial court also took note of Ext. 5 which is Jamabandi in respect of K.P. Patta No. 76 and found that in all these title documents the name of the plaintiff is duly recorded as Pattadar. Although the defendants claimed the suit property to be ancestral one, but no such documentary evidence in support of their claim could be produced. The learned trial court also considered the statement of the witnesses including DW 2, DW 3, and DW 5 and upon such consideration of the materials and documents proved in the suit came to a definite finding that the suit land pertains to K.P. Patta No. 76 and K.P. Patta No. 133 containing the name of the plaintiff. On such consideration of documentary evidence vis-a-vis oral evidence, the learned trial court decided the rela