This appeal is by the plaintiffs against the judgment and decree of the District Judge, Gauhati affirming the judgment and decree of the Assistant District Judge Barpeta dismissing the plaintiffs' suit for declaration of title and confirmation of possession and in the alternative for recovery of possession.

The plaintiffs claimed to be the owners of the suit land. They also claimed that they were in possession thereof. As there was a threat of dis­possession from 'he defendants the suit was filed. It is slated that during the pendency of the suit there was actual dispossession also. A suit was, there­fore, filed for declaration of title, confirmation of possession and in the alternative recovery of possession. The defendants contested the suit on the ground, inter alia, that the defendants were in possession of the suit land since 1967 and, as such, they have acquired title over the suit land. In other words they claimed adverse possession over the suit land. The trial Court held that the plaintiffs had succeeded in proving the title. It held that as the plaintiffs had not claimed recovery of possession, there was no cause of action and the suit was not maintainable. Accordingly the suit was dismissed. An appeal was filed before the District Judge, Gauhati. The District Judge found that the trial Court was not justified in dismi­ssing the suit on the ground that the plaintiffs bad not claimed relief of recovery of possession. He observed in his judgment that there was an alternative prayer in the plaint claiming recovery of possession of the suit land. The learned appellate Court, however, held that though the plaintiffs succeeded in proving title they did not adduce any evidence to establish that they were in possession within a period of 12 years before the date of filing the suit. According to the appellate Court the suit was governed by Article 64 of the Limitation Act and it was for the plaintiffs to prove that they had come before the Court within 12 years from the date of dispossession. In other words, the learned appellate Court put the onus of proof in regard to dispossession within. a period of 12 years before the filing of the suit of the plaintiffs. The learned appellate Court observed that as the suit in question was based both on title and possession the plaintiffs were bound to prove that they approached the Court within 12 years of their dispossession. As that was not done the appellate Court dismissed the suit, The decision of trial Court was thus affirmed and the appeal was dismissed.

Mr. B.K. Das, learned counsel for the appellants submits that both the Courts below committed manifest error of law in holding that the burden of proof in regard to the date of dispossession was on the plaintiffs. It is also submitted that the correct Article applicable in the instant case is Article 65 and not Article 64. His contention is that both the Courts below, therefore, committed manifest error of law on both the aforesaid counts and the decisions, as such, are not tenable in law. Reliance is placed on a decision of the Supreme Court in Hari Shankar & others vs. Rao Girdhari Lal Chowdhury (AIR 1963 SC 698) where it was held that if the burden of proof has been placed en wrong and decisions arrived at on that basis the Court should interfere. In regard to the applicability of Article 65 the learned counsel places reliance on a Division Bench decision of this Court in Hanjabam Bapumacha Shatma & another vs. Hanjabam Gakulchandra Sharma & others (AIR 1975 Gaiuati 47).

I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel. I have also heard Mr. S. Medhi, learned counsel for the respondents. I have perused the judgment of both the Courts below. The facts relevant for deciding the controversy in this case are not in dispute. The admitted position is that the suit of the appellants-plain tiffs was based on title. Ii is also not disputed that the plaintiffs could succeed in proving their title. There is a concurrent finding of

Click Here to Read the rest of this document