The non-delivery of possession does not affect the transfer of title, and lack of mutation in revenue records does not extinguish the title of the lawful purchaser.

ORDER :

Heard Mr. S. Biswas, learned counsel for the appellants. There is no representation from the respondents.

2. This appeal under section 100 CPC is directed against the appellate judgment and decree dated 30.05.2005 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) Barpeta in TA no.39/2004. By the said appellate judgment, the said appeal filed by the appellant-defendant was dismissed and the judgment and decree dated 18.06.2004 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior division) No.1, Barpeta in TS no.78/1999, thereby decreeing the suit, was affirmed.

3. The facts in brief is that the respondent nos.1 to 4 had filed a suit for declaration of right, title and interest, decree of recovery of khas possession by evicting the appellants from the suit land and another consequential reliefs. It was claimed that out of the Schedule-A land, the father of the respondent nos.1, 2, 3, who was also the husband of the respondent no.4, had purchased 2B-1K-5L land vide registered sale deed no.6892/77 dated 08.09.1977 from Sanser Ali (since deceased). The said vendor was the father of the appellant nos.1 to 5, who was also the husband of the appellant no.6 and the father of the respondent no.7, proforma defendant no.1 and proforma defendant no.2.

4. The said land is described in Schedule B of the plaint. It is claimed that the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents was dispossessed from the schedule B land on 03.07.1996 and accordingly, the respondents-plaintiffs had filed said suit. The appellants had contested the suit by filing the written statement, wherein a plea of denial was taken without setting out their own case, save and except stating that the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents and the respondents were not in possession of the suit land in any point of time and that no steps were taken for mutating their respective names in the revenue records. Two sets of written statements were filed, one by the defendant nos.1, 2, 4, 5, 6 and 7 and the other by the defendant no.3. In course of trial, the following five issues were framed by the learned trial Court:

1. Whether there is cause of action for this suit?

2. Whether the suit is barred by limitation?

3. Whether the plaintiffs have right, title and interest over the suit land and the defendants dispossessed the plaintiffs from the suit land on 3-7-96?

4. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to get decree as prayed for?

5. What other relief or reliefs the parties are entitled to?

5. The respondent-plaintiff had examined 5 witnesses and had exhibited three documents, being registered Sale Deed dated 08.09.1997 (Ext.1), certified copy of the said Sale Deed (Ext.2) and certified copy of the current chitha of Dag no.14 (Ext.3). The appellants-defendants had examined four witnesses but did not exhibit any document.

6. In respect of issue no.1, the learned trial Court had held that there was cause of action in the suit and in respect of issue no.2 it was held that the suit was not barred by limitation as suit for recovery of khas-possession based on title is governed by Article 65 of the Limitation Act. In respect of issue no.3, the learned trial Court, on the strength of Ext.1, had held that the respondents-plaintiffs had purchased the suit land described in Schedule B of the plaint and found the evidence of the PWs of being in possession of the suit land reliable and it was further held that the appellants-defendants had failed to adduce better evidence than the respondents to discredit their case and accordingly, it was held that on the death of their predecessor-in-interest, the respondents had inherited his title over the suit land. It was also held that the appellants though in wrongful possession of the suit land, were merely trespassers and accordingly, the issue was decided in the affirmative and in favour of the respondents. Resultantly, the issue nos.4 and 5 were decided in favour of the respondents by holding that they were entitled to get the decree of right, title and int