IMPORTANT POINT
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for full discharge of burden of proof by the plaintiffs, proper explanation, and fulfillment of evidentiary requirements, especially in cases involving tussle of title over the land.

JUDGMENT :

The instant appeal has been preferred under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 challenging a judgment and decree dated 17.07.2008 passed in Title Appeal No. 20/2006 by the learned District Judge, Karimganj as the First Appellate Court. Vide the impugned judgment, the judgment of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) dated 17.11.2003 passed in Title Suit No. 37/2001 by which the suit instituted by the present appellants was decreed, has been interfered with and reversed.

2. The appellants, who are 2 in numbers, were the plaintiffs in the suit registered as Title Suit No.37/2001 which was instituted for declaration of right, title and interest, confirmation of possession and permanent injunction. The defendant, apart from filing his written statement had also filed a counter claim in which he had prayed for a declaration of title and had also challenged two nos. of Sale Deeds. As mentioned above, the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), vide the judgment and decree dated 17.11.2003 had decreed the suit in favor of the appellant plaintiffs which was reversed by the First Appellate Court and it is this decision which is the subject matter of this appeal.

3. This Court vide order dated 10.08.2009 had formulated the following substantial questions of law:

“1. Whether the impugned judgment and decree can be termed as correct and legal for non-consideration of the provisions of Section 110. Evidence Act in respect of the ownership and possession of the appellants over the suit land?

2. Whether the learned Lower Appellate Court is right and correct in not holding that the admissibility of documents. Exts. 1 to 5 etc., cannot be challenged/taken into consideration if the same have been exhibited without any objection?”

4. Subsequently, vide order dated 26.02.2024 another question of law was formulated which is as follows:

“Whether impugned First Appellate Court judgment has complied with the provision of law has laid down in Order XLI Rule 31 of the CPC?”

5. I have heard Ms. R. Choudhury, learned counsel for the appellants. I have also heard Ms. J. Paul, learned counsel for the respondent.

6. Ms. Choudhury, the learned counsel has submitted that the interference by the First Appellate Court against the decree passed by the Trial Court is not in accordance with law. She submits that the suit land was originally belonging to one Birendra Kumar Das and his two sisters who are all sons and daughters of Bipin Chandra Das. In the year 1999, Birendra Kumar Das had purchased the shares from his sisters and as per the plaintiffs/appellants, the suit land was purchased by them from the said Birendra Kumar Das vide two nos. of registered Sale Deeds dated 01.02.2000. Though there was a third purchaser namely Abdul Sabur who was the brother of the appellant's father, on his death the two appellants/plaintiffs had become the owners of the entire suit land. However the defendant had threatened and lodged a false case against the plaintiffs regarding forceful dispossession of the suit land. The same was followed by filing of the present suit. On the other hand, as per the projection made by the respondent/defendant, the suit land had originally belonged to one Bipin Behari Das who had however bequeathed the entire property in favour of an idol of Kali Mata and the predecessor-in-interest of the present defendant Binod Behari Das was entrusted to manage the Debutter vide a Deed. As per the said Deed, Birendra Kumar Das did not have any alienable interest over the suit land. It is also projected that though a specific plea of adverse possession was taken by the defendant, there was no issue framed on the said aspect.

7. The learned Trial Court had formulated seven nos. of issues and the issue no. 3 would be relevant for the purpose of this present adjudication and accordingly the same is extracted herein below:

3) Whether the plaintiffs have right, title, interest and possession over the suit land by virtue of their purc