The identification of the disputed land is crucial in land disputes, and the requirement to prove a Sale Deed by examining the vendor is not applicable without a specific denial of the appellant's right, title, and interest by the respondents.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. S.P. Roy, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. R. Ali, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The appellant Ram Narayan Rajbhor instituted Title Suit No. 76/2006 against the respondents Geeta Ghosh, Ashok Ghosh and Gunu Ghosh where Geeta Ghosh is the wife of Late Ram Prasad Ghosh and Ashok Ghosh and Gunu Ghosh respectively are son and daughter of Late Ram Prasad Ghosh.

3. In paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 respectively of the plaint it is stated as extracted :

“3. That Late Fakaruddin Ali Ahmed (the former president of India) was the absolute owner and possessor of a plot land measuring 5(five) Bighas 4(four) Kathas and 18 (righteen) Lechas of land, covered by K.P. Patta No. 25 Dag No. 20 of village Fatasil Gaon, Mouza-Beltola, situated near the Fatasil Ambari P. S. Later on as per family arrangement, a plot of land measuring 1(one) Katha and 1(one) Lecha had fallen in the share of Late Ahtzamuddin Ali Ahmed (the own brother of Late Fakaruddin Ali Ahmed) out of aforesaid total plot of land of Late Fakaruddin Ali Ahmed.

4. That Late Ahtzamuddin Ali Ahmed vide a Registered Deed of Sale No. 1800/81 dtd. 2.3.81, had sold the said plot of land measuring 1(one) Katha and 1 (one) Lechas to Late Durbali Rajbhor and handed over the actual physical possession of the said plot of land to Late Durbali Rajbhor. The plot of purchased by Late Durbali Rajbhor, vide Sale Deed No. 1800/81 dated 2/3/81, is morefully described in the Schedule ‘A’ below.

5. That after purchase of the below Schedule ‘A’ plot of land, by Late Durbali Rajbhor (who was the father of the present plaintiff), he had constructed Assam Type and Ekchali thatched houses thereon and started residing thereon, along with his family members. At the time of purchase of the below Schedule ‘A’ plot of land, the father of Late Durbali Rajbhor and the grandfather of the present Plaintiff was alive and he was Karta of his H.U.F. which included Late Durbali Rajbhor and his family members. As such the houses constructed over the ‘A’ Schedule plot of land, was assessed by the G.M.C. in the name of Late July Tajbhor, under holding No. 427 of Ward No. 19-A of G.M.C. and he was regularly paying the holding taxes to the G.M.C.”

4. A reading of paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 of the plaint makes it discernible that the predecessor-in-interest of the appellant plaintiff Ram Narayan Rajbhor had purchased a plot of land described as Schedule A to the plaint being land measuring 1 Katha 1 Lecha covered by K.P. Patta No. 25 Dag No. 20 of village Fatasil Ambari Gaon Mouza Beltola bounded by North: Fatasil Ambari Main Road, South: Bharalu River, East: land of Mr. Das (Kalapahar) and West: land of Mithailal Koeri and soap factory and the claim is that the land was purchased by registered Sale Deed No. 1800/81 dated 02.03.1981 where Late Ahtzamuddin Ali Ahmed is the vendor and Late Durbali Rajbhor is the purchaser. The appellant plaintiff accordingly instituted the suit for a declaration of right, title and interest over the Schedule A land and also for recovery of possession of the Schedule B which is two rooms measuring 10 ft. X 10 ft. each, standing over the Schedule A land, which is stated to have been taken at a monthly rent by Late Ram Prasad Ghosh being the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents defendants.

5. The respondents defendants filed their written statement taking the stand as stated in paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 of the written statement which is extracted as below :

“3. That the fact narrated in the plaint are false. The suit property does not belong to the plaintiff as alleged by the plaintiff.

4. That the defendant No. 1 owns and possess a plot of land measuring 10 (ten) lechas covered by Dag No. 20 of village Kalapahar Gaon, Mouza-Beltola, Guwahati, District-Kamrup.

5. That the land in question is a Government land. The Defendant No. 1’s father-in-law Late Rameswar Ghosh was in occupation of the said land, since 1960. After death of the father-in-law of the defendant No. 1, the