IMPORTANT POINT
The burden of proof lies on the plaintiff to establish exclusive and absolute rights over the suit land, and the court may remand a matter for fresh consideration and permit the parties to adduce additional evidence.

JUDGMENT :

The instant appeal has been filed under Section 100 of the Code of the Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, the Code), challenging the judgment and decree dated 21.12.2011 passed by the Court of the learned Additional District Judge, Nagaon (for short, the 1st appellate court). Vide the order dated 19.03.2013, the instant appeal was admitted by formulating the following substantial question of law:

Whether the learned court below committed perversity in interpreting the defendants Purchase Deed viz. exhibit gha to exhibit ta and overlooking the evidence of DW-1, vis-à-vis, the mutation in the name of the plaintiff while declaring right, title and interest of the suit land in favour of the plaintiff?

2. For the purpose of deciding as to whether the said substantial question of law is involved in the instant appeal, this Court finds it relevant to take note of the facts in brief infra:

The plaintiffs are the successor-in-interest of one Masim Sheikh (since deceased). It is the specific case of the plaintiffs that they are the owners of land under dag No.235 of periodic patta No.147 which covers an area measuring 4 bighas 4 kathas 4 lessas situated at Kissam Kadomguri, Mouza-Hangagorah in the district of Nagaon, Assam. The said land for the sake of convenience is hereinafter referred to as the suit land.

3. It is the specific case of the plaintiffs in the plaint that they were absolute owners of the said suit land. However, the defendants had denied their title on various dates and trespassed into the said land on 22.03.2001. It is under such circumstances, that the suit was filed seeking right, title and interest of the plaintiffs over the suit land with a decree for recovery of khas possession against the defendants; a decree for demolishment of any house/structure on the suit land erected by the defendants during the pendency of the suit, (if any); a decree for putting the plaintiffs into the vacant possession of the suit land by removing the house/structure etc. from the suit land with man and materials; for a decree for permanent injunction of the suit etc. On the basis of the suit being filed, it was registered and numbered as Title Suit No.05/2001.

4. The defendant Nos.1 to 5 filed their written statement claiming, inter alia, that 7 bighas 1 katha, 18 lessas of land is covered by dag Nos. 235, 236, 237 which is a part of the old dag No.97 of periodic patta No.42 of 1930/31 settlement. This very patta being periodic patta No.42 originally contained 9 dags and had land measuring 34 bighas 1 katha and 18 lessas. It was mentioned that on 29.03.1952, one Abdul Subhan sold 3 bighas 3 kathas 15 lessas of land covered by dag No.97 to one Abdul Mazid(since deceased) vide a registered sale deed. Further to that, on 21.01.1944, the said Abdul Subhan sold another 2 bighas 2 kathas 5 lessas of land to one Isab Ali, who subsequently on 02.03.1945 sold the said land to Abdul Mazid. In addition to that, the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs Lt. Masim Sheikh by the deed of sale dated 22.01.1962 sold 1 bigha of the land which included a portion of the land of dag No.97. It was also stated that one of the sons of Lt. Masim Sheikh vide registered sale deed No.3076 dated 08.03.1972 sold 1 katha 5 lessas of land to Lt. Abdul Mazid from dag No.236 and 237. It was however mentioned that from a perusal of the said boundaries mentioned in the said deed of sale it would show that the delivery of possession was made in respect of dag No.235. It was, therefore, the specific case of the defendants in the written statement that Lt. Masim Sheikh had no land in dag No.235 of periodic patta No.147 and as such, the suit which was filed ought to be dismissed as it was false and vexatious.

5. On the basis of the said pleadings, the learned trial court framed as many as 8 issues, which included the issue as to whether the plaintiffs had right title and interest over the suit land and as to whether they were entitled to get khas possession thereof, w