This second appeal is by the defendant. Facts are as follows :-

The plaintiff claims to be absolute owner and possessor of the suit land. According to the plaintiff, defendant who is a ploughman cultivated the suit land under him for about two years on wages basis and thereafter plaintiff himself occupied the said land and cultivating the same through his ploughmen. In the re settlement operation in the year 1959-64, a kutcha khatian was issued in the name of the defendant which was surrendered by the defendant. After coming into force of the Assam (Temporarily Settled Areas) Tenancy Act, 1971, for short, 'the Act', the defendant in collusion with the local Revenue Officer obtained a draft khatian by making false and fraudulent allegations though he had no possession of the suit land. Defendant also filed a case under section 145 Cr. P. C. wherein the learned criminal Court rejected the prayer of the defendant that he was in possession of the land. Plaintiff filed objection to the kutcha khatian which was accepted by the Assistant Settlement Officer by rejecting the private khatian. An appeal was preferred before the learned Settlement Officer, Kamrup who set a side the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer. According to the plaintiff this order is bad in law as it was passed in absence of his counsel and without taking fresh evidence. The appeal by the plaintiff was rejected by the Director of Land Records, Assam. Hence, the present suit. In the suit, the plaintiff has prayed for a declaration, inter alia, that defendant is not a tenant under him in respect of the suit land and also for confirmation of possession. It has also been prayed for a decree for sending a precept to the revenue authority to correct the revenue records.

2. The suit was contested by the defendant and according to him he is a tenant in respect of the suit land long before 1959 and accordingly khatian was granted. Defendant has further pleaded that he has got right of occupancy over the land in view of the provisions of the Act. According to the defendant civil Court has no jurisdiction to question the record-of-right of a tenant.

3. The learned trial Court, namely, Sadar Munsiff, Gauhati by order dated 26.6.79 passed in this suit being Title Suit No. 32 of 1978 relying on the provisions of the section 66 of the Act held that civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain this suit. This order was set aside by the learned Assistant District Judge No. 1 at Gauhati in Title Appeal No. 25 of 1979 by the impugned judgment dated 18.12 81. The learned lower appellate Court held that the present suit is basically for determination of the relationship of the landlord and tenant and as such section 66 of the Act is not applicable.

4. I have heard Mr. Bhuyan, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Sarma, learned counsel for the respondents. Mr. Bhuyan has placed reliance on a decision of this Court in Second Appeal No. 35 of 1979 which was disposed of on 5.3.87. On the other hand Mr. Sarma has urged that this is a dispute between the landlord and tenant and in view of section 68 of the Act, a civil Court has jurisdiction.

5. Sections 58 (5), 66 and 68 of the Act which are relevant for the present purpose are quoted below :-

"58 (5). Every entry in a record-of rights finally published shall be conclusive evidence of the matter referred to in such entry, and shall be presumed to be correct until it is proved by evidence to be incorrect. !

66. Matters exempted from cognizance of Civil Court- Except where otherwise expressly provided for in this Act or the Rules made thereunder, no Civil Court shall exercise jurisdi­ction in any of the following matters, -

(a) Claims to enhancement, reduction or alteration of rent of holdings ;

(b) Claims to deposit rent ;

(c) Preparation of record-of-rights under Chapter X and preparation, signing, or alteration of any document contained therein ;

(d) Maintenance of record-of-rights.

68. Jurisdiction of Civil Court-Except as provided in Sec

Click Here to Read the rest of this document