This appeal has been preferred by the appellants against the judgment and decree dated 3.12.86 decree signed on 8.1.87 passed by the Assistant District Judge, Barpeta in Title Appeal No.31 of 1985 setting aside the judgment and order dated 22.5.85 and decree dated 22.5.85 in Title Suit No. 15 of 1984 passed by Shri B. Barman, Munsiff No.2, Barpeta.

2. The opposite party as plaintiff filed the Title Suit No. 15 of 1994 for declaration of title and recovery of khas possession contending in the plaint that he got settlement of the land measuring about 7 bighas and had been dispossessed by the defendant (appellant) on 4.3.83 and took away mustard seeds etc grown by him and therefore filed the suit as stated above. The appellants/defendants contested the suit, denying all along the title of the plaintiff opposite party as well as his possession and took the plea of adverse possession over the land in their written statement as well as in their evidence.

3. The trial Court dismissed the suit and on appeal the lower appellate Court decreed the suit by reversing the judgment and decree of the trial Court. Hence this appeal preferred by the defendant.

4. As many as seven issues were framed and for the decision of this Court issue No.4 is material which has been quoted as below :

“Whether the plaintiff has his right title interest and possession over the suit land ?”

5. As stated above plaintiff's suit was for declaration of title and recovery of possession and defendant denied plaintiffs title over the suit land taking the plea of adverse possession. In that view of the matter as the plaintiffs title is in dispute Court has to give its finding on the question of title.

6. Admittedly opposite party/plaintiffs case for recovery of possession on the basis of title which he attempted to establish in plaint that 'many years back' as a landless person he got allotment and possession of the suit land from the Government by paying revenue regularly possessing the land by cultivating or by his own people. Admittedly no specific date of allotment and possession has been given nor any allotment order has been filed and the chitha (Ext 1) produced by him has not shown any date of allotment. Regarding possession no witness in evidence adduced by him; Mandal's evidence as PW 2 also proved defendant's possession. Evidence of PW 1 (plaintiff) failed to prove that he was in possession till dispossessed by defendants by engaging one Akbar and then by one Karim and these two persons were not examined. After appreciating the evidence on record the trial Court rejected the claim of title. The first appellate Court's re-appreciation of evidence is not sustainable on the ground that discussion of evidence on record by the lower appellate Court found mis-appreciation of evidence regarding title. The finding of the first, appellate Court was that the documents such as certified copy of Jamabandi (Ext 1) and land revenue receipts (Ext 2 (1) to (7) and certified copy regarding demarcation of boundary of the suit land by Revenue Authority, are the documentary evidence which established the title of the plaintiff. In view of a series of decisions the established position of law is that claim of title on the basis of Jamabandi and Chitha, records of right which has no evidentiary value are not proof of title.

7. In the case of Guru Amarjit Singh vs. Rattan Chand (AIR 1994 SC 226) wherein the appellant as plaintiff claimed recovery of possession claiming title on the basis of entries in the Jamabandi. The Apex Court held that it is settled law that entries in the Jamabandi are not proof of title. They are only statement for revenue purpose.

8. In the case of Nagarpalika Jind vs. Jagatsingh, (1995) 3 SCC 426 the Apex Court held that when the suit is based on title, burden to prove the same falls on the plaintiff, though the Court cannot decree a suit merely on the basis of entries in the revenue records.

9. Mr. Choudhury, learned counsel for the respondent has fairly conceded

Click Here to Read the rest of this document