Photocopies of public documents are admissible as evidence if authenticated by testimony, mitigating previous rejections based on technical evidence rules.

JUDGMENT :

Sanjeev Kumar Sharma, J.

1. Heard Ms. R. Choudhury, learned counsel for the appellants, and Mr. D. Kalita, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. This Regular Second Appeal is directed against the Judgment & Decree dated 30.06.2015, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Dhubri, in Title Appeal No. 60/2008, affirming the Judgment & Decree dated 30.08.2008 passed by the Munsiff No. 1, Dhubri in Title Suit No. 189/93, thereby dismissing the appeal on contest.

3. At the time of admission, the following substantial questions of law were framed:-

(i) Whether the learned Courts below committed error in holding the Exts. 1 and 2 are inadmissible although the same were brought on record without objection?

(ii) Whether the learned Courts below committed error in not declaring the right, title and interest of the plaintiff over the suit land on the basis of the proved document?

4. Before dealing with the aforesaid questions, it would be apposite to briefly advert to the facts of the case.

5. The plaintiffs/appellants have pleaded that one Kharia Sk, the predecessor in interest of the plaintiffs as well as the defendant no: 1 and 2 and the pro forma defendants owned and possessed a plot of land measuring 10 Bigha 1 Katha 17 Lessas covered by Khatian no: 186 and also owned another plot of land measuring 2 Bigha 1 Katha 16 Lessas covered by Khatian no: 114 situated at Dharmasala Part I. The plaintiffs have pleaded that Kharia Sk had two wives namely, Ayesha and Fulta and through Ayesha he had one son namely, Fuli Sk and one daughter namely, Ulo Bewa. Kharia Sk had one son namely, Piaru Sk and four daughters namely, Tulo, Buchi, Nalo and Dhepri from his second wife, Fulta. The plaintiffs further pleaded that Fuli Sk had purchased land measuring 4 Katha 15 Lessas covered by Dag no: 509; and another land measuring 1 Bigha 1 Katha 13 Lessas covered by Dag no: 540 of Khatian no: 160 situated at village- Dharmasala Part IV. The plaintiffs have further pleaded that Ful died leaving behind his wife, Tepo, his sister, Ulo and Piaru, Buchi and Nalo and later on Ulo also died leaving behind her son Naimuddin (defendant no:1); and later on Tepo also died issueless, but left behind her brother, namely, Hepa Sk (defendant no:2) and Piaru too died leaving behind the plaintiff and the pro forma defendant no: 12. The plaintiffs have pleaded that Ful, during his lifetime inherited land measuring 3 Bigha out of the property of Kharia Sk and thus he owned a total plot of land measuring 5 Bigha 1 Katha 8 Lessas, i.e his inherited land and the land purchased by him and the aforesaid 5 Bigha 1 Katha 8 Lessas of land was inherited by his heirs, Tepo, Piaru, Buchi and Nalo. The plaintiffs further stated that Piaru had inherited a total plot of land ineasuring 2 Bigha 3 Katha 1413 Lessas from Kharia Sk and his mother, Fulta. The plaintiffs have further pleaded that the four sisters of Piaru had gifted their share of 2 Bigha 1 Katha 161/6 Lessas of land each to Piaru Sk and thus Piaru Sk came to own and possess land measuring 12 Bigha 19 Lessas and after his death the aforesaid land came to be inherited by the plaintiffs and the pro forma defendant no: 12. The plaintiffs have alleged that during the last settlement operation the defendant no: 1, Naimuddin and Tepo had wrongly mutated their names in respect of the above land. It is further is stated by the plaintiff that the suit land was sold in auction for arrears of land revenue but later on the same was set aside in appeal. The plaintiffs have alleged that the defendants are trying to