In a second appeal, courts will not disturb factual findings unless perverse. Private documents require formal proof regardless of age, and judicial declarations operate in personam, meaning findings from prior litigation cannot bind parties who were not participants in those original proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

ROBIN PHUKAN, J.

Heard Mr. M.H. Rajbarbhuiyan, learned counsel for the appellants. Also heard Mr. P.K. Roy, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Ms. A. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. This second appeal, under Section 100 of the CPC, is directed against the judgment and decree dated 17.03.2012, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Karimganj, in Title Appeal No. 30/2008.

3. It is to be noted here that vide impugned judgment and decree dated 17.03.2012, the learned Civil Judge, Karimganj (‘first appellate Court’, for short) had reversed the judgment and decree dated 12.05.2008, passed by the learned Munsiff No. 2, Karimganj (‘trial Court’, for short), in Title Suit No. 201/1997, whereby the learned trial Court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs.

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.

5. The background facts, leading to filing of the present appeal, are briefly stated as under:

“The appellants herein, namely, Md. Main Uddin, Md. Armin Ali and Md. Makisur Rahman, as plaintiffs instituted a title suit, being Title Suit No. 201/1997, for declaration of right, title and interest over Schedule-1 and 2 land and for confirmation of their possession over the same, and also for declaration of khatian prepared in the names of principal defendant Nos. 1 to 5 as fraudulent and illegal document, and for temporary and permanent injunction to restrain the defendant Nos. 1 to 5 from selling the suit land and also from interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs in the said land.

The case of the plaintiffs is that they became owners of the suit land from their father, Late Suraj Ali, who inherited the same by way of inheritance and also through purchase from the co-sharers and they had been maintaining their right, title, interest and possession thereon, since time immemorial, generation after generation. Late Suraj Ali had jote right, over the suit land, under Ashalata Paul and Najib Ali, who had proprietary right over the suit land. The defendant No. 1 was a Zamindar and a very strong and powerful man and since long, he was trying to grab the suit land and impleaded the father of the plaintiffs, in many criminal cases, and with a view to grab the suit land, the defendant No. 1 got a case filed by his son, the defendant No. 2, in the learned Court of Sub- Divisional Executive Magistrate, Karimganj, vide Case No. 538(m)/1997, under Section 145 Cr.P.C. against the plaintiffs, and after going through the settlement record, the plaintiffs came to know that the principal defendant No.1 had created some false and fabricated documents in respect of the suit land in collusion with the settlement staff, and on the strength of said illegal preparation of settlement record, the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 were trying to sell the suit land to the defendant No. 6. Being left with no other choice, the plaintiffs instituted the aforementioned title suit praying for the relief as aforesaid.

The defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 6 had contested the suit by filing their written statements jointly. The suit against the defendant Nos. 3 and 12 proceeded ex-parte and against defendant Nos. 10 and 11, proceeded without written statement as they failed to submit their written statement within the stipulated time. During the pendency of the suit, the