The main legal point established in the judgment is that the lower appellate Court must consider the relevant provisions of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation and the Assam Land Records Manual when deciding property disputes.

Heard Mr. J. Deka, learned counsel for the appellants. Also heard Mr. M. U. Mahmud, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

2. By way of preface, before going into the dispute raised in this appeal in detail, it will be appropriate to make a passing reference to the dispute. One Sukdhan Kachari was the owner of 63 Bigha 3 Katha 18 Lecha of land in various Dags in village Raumari Part-I under Dudhnoi Circle. Out of this land, 6 Bigha in Dag No. 18 was taken by the Government for construction of “Dong” (embankment). Sukdhan Kachari had left behind two sons, namely, (i) Dhwajendra Kachari and (ii) Nareswar Kachari. Both of them are also no more. The dispute, in the present case, relates to partition of properties left behind by Sukdhan Kachari. At the time of institution of the suit, however, Nareswar Kachari, the younger brother, was alive.

3. After some hearing of the Second Appeal had taken place, learned counsel for the parties had submitted that having regard to the nature of the dispute, they would explore the possibility of arriving at an amicable settlement of the dispute and that they would elicit response from their respective clients in this regard. Subsequently, favourable response having been received from the parties, the case was referred to the Gauhati High Court Mediation Centre and the parties were asked to appear on 05.05.2015 at 1-15 P.M. The Second Appeal was fixed on 20.05.2015, by which time the Mediator was directed to submit his report. The Mediator has submitted report stating that the matter could not be settled at that stage. Accordingly, the appeal is now heard on merits.

4. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 25.11.2002 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Goalpara, in Title Appeal No. 2/2002, allowing the appeal of the defendant and reversing the judgment and decree dated 24.12.2001 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) No. 1, Goalpara, in Title Suit No. 16/2000.

5. By an order dated 31.01.2003, this Second Appeal was admitted to be heard on the following substantial questions of law:

“(i) Whether the judgment and decree dated 25.11.2002 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and Asstt. Sessions Judge, Goalpara, passed in Title Appeal No. 2 of 2002 is hit by Order XLI Rule 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure?

(ii) Whether the learned Appellate Court below erred in law in not considering that the record of rights as provided under Sections 40 and 41 of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886, shall always be deemed to be the correct unless the contrary is proved?

(iii) Whether the learned Appellate Court below erred in law in not giving due weightage to the presumption which is attached to the record of rights?”

6. The plaintiffs are the wife of Late Dhwajendra Kachari and his eight daughters. The pleaded case of the plaintiffs is that in the year 1976, both the brothers had mutually partitioned the properties left behind by Sukdhan Kachari and, consequent upon the said partition, the land covered by Schedule-A fell in the share of the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs and the land described in Schedule-B fell in the share of the defendant. The plaintiffs had been possessing the land described in Schedule-A and Kacha Patta was also issued in respect of the Schedule-A land. Both the brothers continued to live in the same “Bhiti” land covered by Dag No. 141, which comprises of an area of 5 Bigha 2 Katha 18 Lecha and is part of Schedule-A. The understanding was that the defendant would vacate the possession of the said “Bhiti” land whenever requested and, as the plaintiffs’ family had no male member, the defendant was not asked to vacate the possession of the “Bhiti” land. However, in the last part of 1997, the defendant filed an application, registered as Misc. Case No. 2/97-98, claiming half of the share of the land described in Schedule-A. Confronted with such a situation, the plaintiffs demanded the defendant to vacate possession of the “Bhiti”