The courts upheld the plaintiff's occupancy rights over the disputed land, emphasizing the necessity of proper procedural adherence and the inadmissibility of unregistered documents for establishing third-party claims.

JUDGMENT :

DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.

1. Heard Mr. G.N. Sahewalla, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. M. Baruah, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants. Mr. K.K. Dey, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the respondent.

2. This is an appeal challenging the judgment and decree dated 26.07.2011 passed by the Court of the learned Civil Judge No. 2, Cachar at Silchar (hereinafter referred to as, the learned First Appellate Court”) in Title Appeal No. 51/2005 whereby the appeal was dismissed thereby confirming the judgment and decree dated 12.07.2005 passed by the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) No. 1, Cachar at Silchar (hereinafter referred to as, “the learned Trial Court”) in Title Suit No. 172/1997.

3. It is seen from the records that the learned Coordinate Bench of this Court vide an order dated 22.09.2011, admitted the present appeal by formulating as many as 7 (seven) substantial questions of law. The said 7 (seven) substantial questions of law are reproduced herein under:

“A. Whether the finding of the courts below on issue No. 3 in favour of the plaintiff/respondent is perverse although Biswajit Paul was not arrayed as a party in view of the fact that as per evidence of the plaintiff Angad Paul and Biswajit Paul ousted her from the land and it is proved by defendant/appellant that the defendant No. 1 Naresh Ghatowar transferred the land vide Ext-A Sale Deed dated 30.03.90 as well as Ext. B, C and D swarnlipies in favour of Angad Paul defendant/appellant as well as Biswajit Paul?

B. Whether the finding of the courts below on issue No. 3 in favour of the plaintiff/respondent is perverse although the legal heirs of Rajani Mohan Das and Nayan Chand Das, who were admittedly original owners of the land except Subodh Ch. Das were not arrayed?

C. Whether finding of the courts below on issue No. 3 in favour of the plaintiff/respondent is perverse in not arraying the State of Assam as a party since it was proved that the land was declared as celling surplus and was made khas and proposal for settlement was made in favour of Angad Paul and Biswajit Paul?

D. Whether the courts below were right in heavily relying on the report of the amin Commissioner who having admitted that he had not shown either in the map or in the report the boundary of the suit land not there was direction to measure/survey the suit land or the land of the khatian?

E. Whether the appellate court below was correct in applying Section 68 of the EVIDENCE ACT in holding that Ext. A to D are not legally proved as the said documents are required to be attested compulsorily inasmuch as the documents ext. A to D are not required by law to be attested?

F. Whether the finding of the appellate court below is perverse in holding that Ext. A as proved before the appellate court regarding proposal for recommendation of allotment of land measuring 4B 16K 16CH of land under Dag No. 38/224 (Kha) and 224 (GA) of Mouza Disha Grant Ph-Lakhipur does not cover the suit land although new dags come out of original Dag No. 38?

G. Whether courts below failed to consider the fact that the alleged transfer in 1975 as claimed by plaintiff/respondent is in violation of Assam (Temporarily Settled Areas) Tenancy Act, 1971, for which the tenant’s interest in the land is forfeited as per Section 50 of the Act and whether the findings of the court below are vitiated?

H. Any other question(s), which may be allowed to be raised at the time of hearing.”

The question which arises for consideration before this Court is whether any of the 7 (seven) or all of the 7 (seven) substantial questions of law are involved in th