The main legal point established in the judgment is the applicability of Section 90 of the Evidence Act and the presumption of the validity of a registered document. The judgment also emphasized the importance of mutation and revenue records as corroborative evidence of title and possession.

Amitava Roy, J.

1. The appellant-plaintiff being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 23.11.2000, passed by the Civil Judge (Sr. Division) No. 2 Guwahati, in Title Appeal No. 24 of 1991, affirming the verdict of the learned Trial Court dismissing his Title Suit No. 68 of 1986, is in appeal.

2. I have heard Mr. B.K. Goswami, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. P.K. Kalita, Advocate for the appellant-plaintiff and Mr. S. Medhi, Advocate assisted by Mr. S. Baruah, Advocate for the respondent No. 1 to 4-defendants. The name of the proforma respondent No. 5 had been struck of in terms of the order of this Court.

3. The pleaded version of the appellant-plaintiff in short, is that Ratan Kalita and Jurai Kalita (both deceased) were brothers owning and possessing separately in equal shares land measuring 1 Bigha 1 Katha 8 Lechas covered by Dag No. 711 (new)/463 (old) of K.P Patta No. 178 (new)/103 (old) in village Sualkuchi under Pub Bongsor Mauza in the district of Kamrup described in Schedule-B to the plaint. In or about the year 1956 half portion of the said land owned and possessed by Ratan Kalita, was acquired by the Electricity Department for which compensation was also granted. Following this, Jurai Kalita, the father of the respondent-defendant No. 1 & 2 and husband of respondent-defendant No. 3 became the absolute owner of the remaining half portion of the land in Schedule-B, measuring 3 Kathas 4 Lechas. In the year 1956, he sold 1 Katha thereof, described in Schedule A-1 and A-2 to the plaint in favour of Ratan Kalita, who then resided there with his wife Champa Kalita. On the death of Ratan Kalita, his wife widow Champa Kalita survived as his only heir. On 26.04.1965 Champa Kalita sold 1 Katha of land described in Schedule A-1 and A-2 to Golapi Kalita by executing a registered deed of sale. Thereafter on 01.11.1985, Golapi Kalita sold the said land with a thatched house thereon, to the appellant-plaintiff by a registered deed of sale and also delivered possession thereof to him. At or about the same time, the respondent-defendant No. 1, instituted a proceeding under Section 145/146 Cr.P.C. registered as Misc. Case No. 191m of 1985, in which the learned Executive Magistrate declared the possession of the aforementioned land in his favour. The appellant-plaintiff, having unsuccessfully challenged the said order before the revisional Court, instituted the aforementioned suit, praying for a decree inter alia for declaration of his right, title and interest over the suit land and confirmation of possession. He, in the alternative also prayed that in case his possession was determined to be uncertain, a decree for delivery of khas possession be also granted.

4. The suit was contested by the respondent-defendant Nos. 1, 2 & 3. While categorically denying each and every averment made in the plaint, they claimed that the thatched house on the suit land had been constructed by them and that they were in absolute possession of the suit property. They specifically denied that Jurai Kalita during his lifetime had sold 1 Katha of land from his share to his brother Ratan Kalita by executing a registered deed of sale. They asserted that the suit land had never been in possession of Ratan Kalita in his lifetime.

On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned Trial Court framed several issues of which issue No. 5 & 6 being of vital relevance are set out hereinbelow:

Issue No. 5, Whether the title and possession of the suit land ever passed to the hands of the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff and subsequently to the plaintiff?

Issue No. 6, Whether the defendants have been in undisputed and continuous possession of the suit land ?

5. Both sides adduced evidence both oral and documentary. Whereas, the appellant-plaintiff examined himself and amongst others Smt. Golapi Kalita, the respondents-defendants examined the respondent-defendant No. 1 and one Sri Nivarsa Kalita. The learned Trial Court on a consideration of the pleadin