The sufficiency of unchallenged documentary evidence for establishing title and ownership is critical in property disputes.

JUDGMENT :

DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.

1. Heard Mr. A.K. Purkayastha, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant. Mr. D. Choudhury, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 to 5.

2. This is an appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short “the Code”) challenging the judgment and decree dated 12.07.2007 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Bongaigaon (hereinafter referred to as, “the learned First Appellate Court”) in Title Appeal No. 2/2006 whereby the judgment and decree dated 05.09.2006 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Bongaigaon (hereinafter referred to as, the learned Trial Court”) in Title Suit No. 55/2006 was reversed. It is relevant to take note of that vide an order dated 16.07.2008, the learned Coordinate Bench of this Court had admitted the instant appeal by formulating 3 (three) substantial questions of law which reads as under:

1. Whether the plaintiff has acquired any right, title and interest on the basis of Ext. 1 (Regd. Sale deed) and Ext. 3 (patta), which were neither challenged by the defendants nor were cancelled by any competent Civil Court?

2. Whether the plaintiff is legally bound to prove Ext. 1, Ext, 2 and Ext. 3 as held by the learned appellate Court below, when those documents were never challenged by the defendants in any competent Civil Court for cancellation?

3. Whether the Regd. Sale Deed (Ext. 1), land Holding certificate (Ext. 2) and kacha patta (Ext. 3) will stand invalid in view of mere pleadings in W/S without any evidence as to the allegations of suppression of material facts on the part of the plaintiff?

The question which arises for consideration before this Court is as to whether the 3 (three) substantial questions of law which were formulated are involved in the instant appeal. To ascertain the said, this Court finds it relevant to take note of the facts leading to the filing of the instant appeal.

3. From the materials on record, it is seen that the appellant herein as plaintiff had instituted the suit being Title Suit No. 28/2003 which was subsequently re-registered as Title Suit No. 55/2006. In the said suit, it is the case of the plaintiff that one Shri Meghnath Medhi vide the register deed of sale No. 441/2002 had transferred a plot of land admeasuring 17 Bigha 18 Lechas situated at Chakapara IInd part under Dihi-Birjhora, and under Bongaigaon Revenue Circle in the District of Bongaigaon, Assam which was covered by Dag No. 208 and Patta No. 182 (old) and 227 (new) in favour of the plaintiff. Thereupon, the plaintiff in the month of May, 2003 transferred 9 Bighas 3 Kathas 8 Lechas of land to one Jyotsna Choudhury of Chakapara and the plaintiff continued to remain in possession of 7 Bighas 2 Kathas 10 Lechas of the land which was more specifically described in the Schedule to the plaint. It is the further case of the plaintiff that the defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 3 have forcefully entered into the suit lands and started cultivating on and from 16.07.2003. The plaintiff obstructed to the same and thereupon continued to remain in possession. It is the further case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff continued to remain in the possession though under extreme threat. It is under such circumstances, the plaintiff had sought for declaration of her right, title and interest in respect to the suit land described in the Schedule to the plaint and for permanent injunction.

4. The defendants jointly filed a written statement. In the said written statement, the defendants denied that the plaintiff had any right, title and interest over the Schedule land or for that matter had any