IMPORTANT POINT
The court upheld the admissibility of historical tenancy documents under Section 90 of the Evidence Act, confirming the plaintiffs' rights over the land despite challenges regarding document validity.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. A.D. Choudhury, learned counsel for the appellants. Also heard Ms. R. Choudhury, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1—3 and Mr. T.R. Gogoi, learned Government Advocate, Assam, appearing for the proforma respondent Nos.6—8.

2. In this appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the appellants have put to challenge the correctness or otherwise of the judgment dated 09.09.2015 and decree dated 14.10.2015 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Dhubri (First Appellate Court), in Title Appeal No.23/2011. It is to be noted here that vide impugned judgment dated 09.09.2015 and decree dated 14.10.2015, the learned First Appellate Court has upheld the judgment and decree dated 27.01.2011 passed by the learned Munsiff No.2, Dhubri, in Title Suit No.348/2005.

3. The back ground facts leading to filing of the present appeal is briefly stated as under:-

“The appellants herein, being the plaintiffs, had instituted a title suit being Title Suit No.348/2005 for declaration of right, title and interest and possession over the suit land. The case of the appellants was that a plot of land measuring about 7 bigha 1 katha covered by Myadi Patta No.914 and Touji No.183 of Dag No.196 situated at village Mankachar was originally owned by one Farid Sarkar and after his death the aforesaid land was inherited by his son Abdul Goni Sarkar i.e. the predecessor of the proforma defendants. Said Abdul Goni Sarkar, during his lifetime settled a plot of land measuring 10 katha in favour of the plaintiff No.1 Sri Abdul Saheed as tenant and delivered the possession of the same in the Bengali year 1362. Thereafter, sometime in the year 1973 Abdul Goni Sarkar died and thereafter, the plaintiff No.1 became the permanent tenant under the landlord Abdul Goni Sarkar under the Assam (Temporarily Settled Areas) Tenancy Act, 1971 and obtained raiyoti khatian in his name. Thereafter, the plaintiff No.1 transferred a plot of land measuring 12 lechas to plaintiff No.2, namely, Noor Abedin and another plot of land measuring 16 lechas to the predecessor of the plaintiff No.3 Mazibar Rahman and a plot of land measuring 3 katha 4 lechas remained under the occupation of the plaintiff No.1 and the plaintiffs had constructed their residential houses in their respective plot of land and started residing therein, which is described as Schedule-“B” land. Thereafter, the defendant No.2 Md. Hamidul Islam had filed a petition on 08.12.2002 before the Settlement Officer (defendant No.6) and got the raiyoti khatian cancelled, which stood in the name of the plaintiffs and got the names of the defendant Nos.1— 4 recorded therein in Misc. Case No.14/2004 and on the basis of aforesaid illegal mutation, they are claiming the land belonging to the plaintiffs and are trying to evict the plaintiffs.

The defendant Nos.1—4 had contested the suit by filing written statement along with a counter claim that the suit is not maintainable. Their case was that the plaintiffs were never allotted or settled with the suit land by Abdul Goni Sarkar and the plaintiffs are not the raiyots and they do not have any permanent and heritable right over the same. The case of the defendants is that Farid Sarkar, the original owner, had a land measuring 13 bigha 14 katha 17 dhur under the A/E Touji No.330, of which the eastern part got submerged in river Kalo and the western part was sandy, which was recorded in Dag No.196 under Khatian No.251 and the plaintiffs illegally occupied the south-west part of the aforementioned land and illegally claimed to be the tenants and got their names recorded as raiyots illegally and as such, they have cancelled the name of the plaintiffs by filing the Misc. Case No.14/2004 and that originally there were two tenants, namely, one Nazaruddin and Kasimuddin and they had defaulted in payment of rent and as such, the same was sold in auction in Case No.281/LR/73-74 and that they had inherited a plot of land measuring 7 bigha 1 katha under Dag No.196 of Kh