A registered sale deed over 30 years old carries a presumption of authenticity, shifting the burden of proof to the opposing party to challenge its validity.

ORDER :

(ROBIN PHUKAN, J.)

Heard Ms. R. Choudhury, learned counsel for the appellants.

2. This appeal under Section 100 read with Order XLII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is directed against the judgment and decree dated 24.02.2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Bongaigaon ('First Appellate Court' for short), in Title Appeal No.09/2018, whereby the learned First Appellate Court has reversed the judgment and decree dated 10.07.2018 passed by the learned Munsiff [Now Civil Judge (Jr. Division)], North Salmara, Abhayapuri ('Trial Court' for short), in Title Suit No.72/2006, by which the suit of the respondents/plaintiffs was dismissed.

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

“The respondent herein as plaintiff instituted a title suit, being Title Suit No.72/2006 for declaration of his right, title and interest and for confirmation of possession and for permanent injunction over a plot of land measuring 1 bigha 2 katha 10 lecha under Dag No.48. His case is that from proforma defendant No.1, namely, Amalendu Baruah, who was the owner of a plot of land measuring 31 bigha 1 katha 6 lecha covered by Dag No.48 and 17 bigha 4 katha 8 lecha covered by Dag No.47 and the plaintiff has purchased a plot of land measuring 1 bigha 2 katha 10 lecha from the proforma defendant No.1 vide registered Sale Deed No.1696/1964, dated 19.08.1964 and got khas possession over the said land mentioned in Schedule-B of the plaint and got joint patta and mutated his name over the same. The plaintiff then sold 2 katha 10 lecha land from the Schedule-B land to the proforma defendant No.23, namely, Dipak Narayan Dev and handed over possession to him and thereafter, land measuring 1 bigha of the Schedule-C (Schedule-C1) was in his possession. On 12.01.1994, when he visited the suit land, he found the defendants to have trespassed into the suit land and constructing some houses thereon. When the plaintiff raised objection, the defendants stated that they have better title over the suit land. Thereafter, the plaintiff had gone through the revenue records and had come to know that the defendants had purchased the plot of land from proforma defendant Gajendra Kr. Das, who had in fact purchased 1 bigha of land from original pattadar i.e. the proforma defendant No.1 from Dag No.47 and he had nothing to do with Dag No.48 covering the suit land and the proforma defendant Gajendra Kr. Das had purchased the said land much later than the plaintiff.

The defendants contested the said suit by filing written statement. In their written statement, the defendant Nos.1, 2 and 3 stated that they are not possessing any land of the plaintiff and they have their own land within the big plot of Schedule-A land and that the proforma defendant No.1 Amalendu Baruah is the original owner of the Schedule-A land and they have purchased their land out of the Schedule-A land from Gajendra Kr. Das i.e. the proforma defendant No.5. They have also got mutation over their possessed land. However, they admit that the Schedule-C land is the suit land and they denied the possession of the plaintiff‟s land in the area of the Schedule-A land and also in Schedule-C land and they have been possessing their own land since the time of purchase and they got the registration of sale, wherein inadvertently the dag number is mentioned and subsequently, the same was corrected as Dag No.48 and the name of the plaintiff has been entered in the patta, however, the mutation of the land in his name has been done through collusive means as the plaintiff h