This application under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is directed against the judgment of learned Munsiff, Sonamura dated 26.3.87 whereby learned Munsiff dismissed the suit of the plaintiff who is petitioner before me.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 31.5.85 the petitioner herein filed Title SuitNo.21 of 1985 against the respondents for restoration of the possession of land measuring 7 kanis 16 gandas and 1 kara (hereinafter referred to as 'suit land' which is more particularly described in the schedule attached to the plaint). It was pleaded that the suit land originally belonged to Eaqub Ali, Mainul Hossen, Altab Ali and Abdul Karim who exchanged the suit property with the property of the father of petitioner in East Pakisthan (now Bangladesh). To effectuate the exchange the aforesaid owners executed a Power of Attorney in favour of Nibaran Chandra Sarkar (the father of the petitioner) who by virtue of that Power of Attorney executed a deed of sale transferring the suit land in favour of the petitioner who was at that time a minor. It was further pleaded that the petitioner's father got possession of the land and he was also exercising possession over the suit land. But during survey settlement operation, the suit land was recorded as khas land and thereafter this suit land was allotted by the Government in favour of the defendants-respondents. The father of the petitioner, therefore, filed Title SuitNo.33 of 1980 as natural guardian of the petitioner for declaration of title and perpetual injunction. The suit was, however, dismissed by the trial Court. But although the suit was dismissed, the trial Court made a finding that the plaintiff was in possession of the suit land. Since the trial Court made a finding that the plaintiff was in possession of the suit land, no appeal/revision was preferred against that judgment.

3. But it was alleged that on 2.8.85 the defendants/respondents trespassed into the suit land, ploughed it and thus dispossessed the plaintiff forcibly. The petitioner, therefore, filed the Title Suit No.21 of 1985 under section 6 of the Specific Relief Act for restoration of possession of the suit land. This suit was resisted by the defendants-respondents and upon the pleadings, learned Munsiff framed the following issues for determination of the suit.

1. Whether the plaintiff was in possession over the suit property ?

2. Whether the defendant dispossessed the plaintiff therefrom ?

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get the decree as prayed for ?

4. Both the parties adduced evidence but learned Munsiff held that non-production of Power of Attorney gave rise to an adverse presumption under section 114 (g) of the Evidence Act. With this finding, learned trial Court dismissed the suit on contest. Hence this revision. The finding of learned Munsiff relevant for the purpose may be extracted as follows :

“ Since the basis of the possession of the plaintiff was the deed of power of attorney it ought to have been relied on evidence but the plaintiff for reason best known to him has withheld the same. The non-production of such a material document gives rise to an adverse presumption under section i 14 (g) of the Evidence Act. So, from the oral evidence and the exhibit a presumption of possession can be drawn as I find a long standing claim of possession of the plaintiff but no inference could be taken on presumption. The plaintiffs suit is thus liable to be failed.”

5. It would be apparent from the finding of learned Munsiff quoted above that learned Munsiff held that if the Power of Attorney could bt produced it would be unfavourable to the plaintiff-petitioner and hence he dismissed the suit. But I am really at a loss to understand how a Power of Attorney in a case of in is nature can be considered to be a sufficient proof indicating possession. The case of the plaintiff-petitioner, as stated above, was that he got the suit land by way of exchange and to effectuate that exchange the owner execut

Click Here to Read the rest of this document