IMPORTANT POINT
The presumption of due execution for registered documents under the Indian Evidence Act places the burden of proof on the party challenging the validity of such documents, and failure to provide sufficient evidence to rebut this presumption results in the upholding of the registered title.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. I. Ikbal, the learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. B. D. Deka, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1.

2. Both the appeals, i.e. RSA No.156/2019 and RSA No.138/2022 are taken up together for disposal taking into account that the appeals herein arises out of the same suit, i.e. Title Suit No.22/2011.

3. This Court is taking up both the appeals at the stage of Order XLI Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, the Code) to consider as to whether the questions of law so proposed by the learned counsel for the appellants are substantial questions of law involved in the instant appeal. For ascertaining as to whether the said questions of law are substantial questions of law involved in the instant appeal, it would be relevant to take note of the brief facts of the case. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to in the same status as they stood before the trial court.

4. The respondent No.1 herein as plaintiff in Title Suit No.22/2011 filed the suit seeking declaration of his right, title and interest in respect to the land described in Schedule-Kha of the plaint by evicting the principal defendant Nos.1 & 2 from the said land; a decree for temporary injunction; a decree for permanent injunction restraining the principal defendant Nos. 1 & 2 from making any construction of houses over the Schedule-Kha land and also from digging the soil over the suit land and constructing any latrine over the suit land; for cost of the suit etc.

5. The case of the plaintiff as sets out in the plaint is that land measuring 2 kathas out of 4 bighas 4 kathas 9 lechas covered by Dag No.49, PP No.442 of 1969-70 settlement year situated at village-Morigaon under Mouza-Morigaon was sold to the plaintiff by one Raghu Kalita during his lifetime by executing a registered Sale Deed No.1794 in the Office of the Sub-Registrar, Morigaon on 26.11.1990 and further delivered the possession of the said land to the plaintiff. It is the further case of the plaintiff that after taking physical possession of the Schedule-Kha land which is the suit land, the plaintiff erected four numbers of pucca pillars and bamboo fencing on the boundary of the said land and started to occupy and possess the said land by paying the requisite land revenue to the Government. It has been mentioned that vide the order dated 05.12.2005, passed by the Circle Officer, Morigaon Revenue Circle in connection with Mutation Case No.114 (Ka)/2005-06, the Plaintiff obtained necessary mutation of his name in respect to the said two kathas of land. It is the further case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff was in continuous possession of the suit land as described in Schedule-Kha to the plaint. However, the proforma defendant No.14, without having any right, title, interest and possession over the suit land and behind the back of the plaintiff, that too after the death of the pattadar Raghu Kalita, obtained mutation in his name in respect of 2 kathas 2 lechas of land out of 4 bighas 4 kathas 9 lechas in collusion with the revenue staff and thereafter sold 2 kathas of land to the principal defendant No.1. It is the further case of the plaintiff that the principal defendant Nos.1 & 2, in collusion with the proforma defendant No.14, taking advantage of the absence of the plaintiff, trespassed into the suit land, i.e. the Schedule-Kha land on 11.01.2011 and constructed a temporary shed/roof made of C.I. sheets and thereby dispossessed the plaintiff from the suit land. The plaintiff thereafter raised objection on 12.01.2011 against such unauthorized act of construction. However, the principal defendant Nos.1 & 2 denied the title of the plaintiff over the suit land. As such, the said suit was filed claiming relief(s) as already mentioned herein above.

6. At this stage it may be relevant herein to mention that the Schedule-Kha land has been specifically described in the plaint and for the sake of convenience, the same is reprod