The presumption of authenticity for documents over 30 years under Section 90 of the Evidence Act cannot apply to documents under 30 years, requiring proof of execution regardless of registration.

JUDGMENT :

ROBIN PHUKAN, J.

1. Heard Ms. S. Sarma, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. R.P. Sarma, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. N.N. Upadhyay, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. In this appeal, under Section 100 of the CPC, the appellants have put to challenge the judgment and decree dated 03.05.2017, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Dibrugarh ("first appellate Court" for short), in Title Appeal No. 41/2006.

3. It is to be noted here that vide impugned judgment and decree dated 03.05.2017, the learned first appellate court had affirmed the judgment and decree dated 30.06.2006, passed by the learned Munsiff No. 1, Dibrugarh ("trial Court" for short), in Title Suit No. 49/2000, where by the suit of the plaintiffs was dismissed.

4. For the sake of convenience and to avoid confusion, the parties herein are referred to in the same status as they appeared in the suit.

Background Facts:-

5. The background facts, leading to filing of the RSA No. 144/2018, are adumbrated herein below:-

“Late Abdul Rahim, the father of the plaintiffs was a resident of Silchar, Cachar and he came to Dibrugarh in the year 1940 and started various businesses including the contract work at Dibrugarh, under E & D Department.

Thereafter, on 01.11.1969, he purchased a plot of land, measuring one Bigha, at Gabharu Pather Ward, under Dibrugarh Town Mouza and filled up the same with earth and constructed two barrack typed kutcha houses to provide accommodation to his labourers and maintain his office. Subsequently, he purchased another plot of land, measuring one Bigha, from the vendor, namely, Mazahar Hussain, in the year 1972, and the same was contiguous to the earlier plot of land and being contiguous, both the plots formed a single block. Thereafter, the name of the father of the plaintiffs, was mutated in the revenue records and the Holding Number was also re-numbered in his favour by Dibrugarh Municipal Board.

Thereafter, in the year 1976, when the rooms were not required for the labourers, he leased out 2 rooms of the barrack, to one Monohar Ali and another room to Musstt. Phul Begum. When Monohar Ali vacated his part of the tenanted premises, the said room was also taken over by Musstt. Phul Begum at an enhanced rate.

Thereafter, due to non-payment of the bills by the Department, in the year 1977 said Abdul Rahim approached the defendant Abdur Rahman (since deceased) for a loan of Rs. 20,000/ to complete the contract work on 23.02.1977, with the condition that the Sale Deed, by which Abdul Rahim had purchased the suit land, would be kept with him as security. It was also agreed upon that whatever bills that would be received by Abdul Rahim, would be given to the defendant Abdur Rahman and the said Abdur Rahman would be entitled to a share of 2 annas per rupee of the profit of the contract job financed by him.

It is the contention of the plaintiffs that their father had received a sum of Rs. 14,000/- from the defendant and after returning a sum of Rs. 2,000/-, he could not return the remaining amount of Rs. 12,000/- because of non-receipt of bills from the Government and when the plaintiff No. 1, Md. Nurul Islam, started to look after the contract work of his father and started the contract work in his name, due to financial problem he also approached the defendant Abdur Rahman for a sum of Rs. 3,000/- as a loan and thereupon, on 25.07.1977, the plaintiff No. 1 entered into a separate agreement with the defendant Abdur Rahman to return the sum of Rs. 3,000/- along with the outstanding of Rs. 12,000/- and in the new agreement, it was agreed that the defendant would be entitled to a share of Rs. 20/- per Rs. 100/- on the profit of the contract.

Thereafter, in the year 1982, Abdul Rahim had to go to Silchar for some unavoidable family problem and stayed there till 1987. During that period the plaintiff No. 1, returned a sum of Rs. 8,500/- to the defendant Abdur Rahman, but could not return the entire amount, because he had to provide medical tre