The court emphasized the importance of establishing claims and defenses through evidence, and the applicability of Section 26 of the Specific Relief Act in rectifying mistakes in sale deeds.

This second appeal has been preferred by defendant of T.S. No. 87/1997 of the Court of learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.) No. 1 of Dibrugarh challenging the appellate judgment and decree dated 21.05.2004 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.) at Dibrugarh in T.A. No. 12/2003. The respondent, namely, Smti. Putali Bala Das, as plaintiff, instituted T.S. No. 87/1997 in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.) No. 1 at Dibrugarh stating that defendant, namely, Sri Munilal Das being the owner in possession of a plot of land measuring 2 kathas covered by Periodic Patta No. 38 and Dag No. 86 of Chiring gaon under Dibrugarh town Mouza executed a sale deed in her favour on 19.03.1985 and got the same registered. But subsequently, when the plaintiff made prayer for mutation on the basis of aforesaid purchase vide registered sale deed dated 19.03.1985, discovered that the defendant had executed sale deed in regard to Dag No. 68 whereas it should have been dag No. 86 although the boundaries remained same.

2. Situated thus, plaintiff got sent two notices to the defendant asking him to rectify the dag number mentioned in schedule to the sale deed. As the defendant did not rectify, suit was filed praying for rectification under Section 26 of the Specific Relief Act. Plaintiff also prayed for declaration of his right, title and interest over the suit land and recovery of possession. The sole defendant appeared and submitted written statement. In paragraph 10 of the written statement the defendant stated that no such sale deed as alleged was ever executed by him. Paragraph 10 of the written statement is quoted below:-

“10. That the allegation made in para No. 7 of the plaint is also not admitted by the answering defendant as no such Sale Deed as alleged was ever executed by the answering defendant and since the plaintiff is put to the strict proof thereof.”

3. At paragraph 14 of the written statement, the defendant took a specific stand that since 1973 he was engaged in dispute with his brothers and sisters for long period in respect of family properties and that since 1982 he was isolated by his family as he had developed insanity. His wife and children took control of the family property and drove him out of the family and since then he had been residing all along in a separate house. The learned trial court after consideration of the pleadings of the parties framed as many as 8 (eight) issues as follows:-

i) Whether the suit is maintainable?

ii) Whether there is any cause of action for the suit?

iii) Whether the plaintiff has right to sue?

iv) Whether the defendant sold the suit land to the plaintiff on 19.03.1985?

v) Whether the plaintiff has got a right of possession over the suit land?

vi) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a Deed of Rectification of Sale Deed to be executed by the defendant by correcting the Dag No. as 86 of Chiring Gaon Ward, Dibrugarh Town Mouza in place of Dag No. 68?

vii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree as claimed in the plaint?

viii) To what relief, the parties are entitled to?

3. Plaintiff examined 3 (three) witnesses including herself. Her husband was examined as PW 2 and defendant side examined 2 (two) witnesses. But defendant stayed away from the witness box. His wife examined herself as DW 1 and Mandal of Office of the Deputy Commissioner as DW 2.

4. The plaintiff in her evidence stated that the defendant was in friendly term with her husband. The defendant executed the sale deed. Her husband examining himself as PW 2 also similarly deposed that defendant executed the sale deed. The sale deed was exhibited as Ext. 2. The learned Trial court on the basis of the evidence led by the parties dismissed the suit by his Judgment and Decree dated 24.06.2003. Aggrieved, plaintiff preferred Title Appeal No. 12/2003 in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Dibrugarh. The learned first appellate court framed as many as 7 (seven) points for determination out of which points No.