Point of Law: It is a settled position of law that entry in the records of rights never confers any right over any land. For this issue, no elaborate discussion is necessary. 20. Both the substantial question of law are answered accordingly.

JUDGMENT :

PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA, J.

1. Heard Mr. F.U. Borbhuya, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant. Also heard Mr. H. Das the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

2. This is a regular second appeal u/s 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, against the judgment dated 04.08.2008, passed by the Civil Judge, Goalpara in Title Appeal No. 05/2008, arising out of the judgment dated 11.09.2007, passed by the learned Munsiff No. 1, Goalpara in Title Suit No. 83/2004.

3. This appeal was admitted for hearing upon the following 2 substantial question of law:

1. Whether the learned lower appellate Court is right and correct as per provisions of Order 7 Rule 3 in holding that the purchased land vide Ext.9 and the gift land vide Ext.10. Are different on the facts of existence of these two deeds and the specific description of the land in question in plaint?

2. Whether partial entry of the suit land made in the records of right is sufficient to confer valid title in favour of the respondents-defendants Regulation in view of rebuttal of the same by the appellant side/plaintiff?

4. The appellant file the Title Suit No. 83/2004, against the respondent praying for a decree declaring that the appellant No. 1 has right, title and interest over 3B, 2K and 10L of land and the appellant no. 2 has the right, title and interest over 1 bigha of land as described in the schedule of the plaint. The appellant further prayed for a decree for recovery of vacant possession of the suit land after evicting the respondents therefrom.

5. Both the plots of land comprise of a bigger plot of land measuring 4B-2K-10L. The aforesaid land is a part of 24B-7K-3L of Tauzi land, originally owned and possessed by Late Sanu Sheikh @ Sayenuddin Sheikh, the father of the respondents.

6. Late Sayenenuddin Sheikh executed a registered sale deed no. 659, dated 15.03.1954, in favour of Md. Mazam Ali, the father of the appellants in respect of the suit land. The possession of the land was also delivered to Md. Majam Ali. Since then, Late Majam Ali and after his death, the present appellants have been in possession of the suit land. In the records of rights necessary correction were also made.

7. Out of the total land of 4B-2K-10L, Late Majam Ali gifted 3B-2K-10L of land belonging to the appellant no. 1 and the remaining 1bighs of land to appellant no. 2. The possession of land were also handed over to both the appellants.

8. The aforesaid 3B-2K-10L of land belonging to the appellant no. 1 was infact physically possessed by her husband Anowar Hussain. Similarly, the other 1 bigha of land owned by the second appellant was physically possessed by her husband Mobarak Ali.

9. The deceased respondent no. 1 late Ayenuddin Sheikh filed petition u/s 145 of the Cr.P.C. and the learned Executing Magistrate attached the entire 4B-2K-10L of the suit land. The other respondents also staked their claim over the suit land and also physically encroached upon the land.

10. This is the crux of the story, on the basis of which, the appellants filed the suit before the Court below.

11. The respondents jointly filed a written statement. They pleaded that the description of 4B-2K-10L of the land as given in the schedule of the plaint is partly true and partly false. They admitted that in the north of the land there is the land of Tota Mia. But they denied that after Tota Mia’s land there is the no land of Jasan Ali or Hazarat Ali etc. They further admitted that in the south there is the land of Abed Ali and Jasan Ali but beyond them, the lands do not belong to Samad and Soket Ali. The respondents admitted that in the eastern side, there is the land of Jasan Ali but beyond that there is no land of Samad and Soket. The respondents continued to admit that in the western side there is the land of Sayenuddin but beyond that there is no land of Asimuddin.

12. The respondents denied the fact that Late Majem Ali had gifted the land to his two daughters. The respondents claimed that the gift deed no. 108