A plaintiff must present compelling evidence to rebut existing presumptions in property records; otherwise, a suit can be dismissed, especially when considering limitation laws.

JUDGMENT :

ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY, J.

Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties.

2. During the course of argument, the learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the suit was decided ex-parte. Neither the defendants filed their written statement nor they appeared in the case, nor they cross examined any of the witnesses of the plaintiff. He has submitted that the suit was filed on the basis of registered deed of sale executed in favour of the plaintiffs. The suit was filed for declaration of title and also confirmation of possession and alternative prayer was also made that if the plaintiff is found dispossessed, he will be put in possession of the property.

3. The learned counsel has submitted that the cause of action arose when an entry in record of right came to the knowledge of the plaintiff in the year 2021 that the property has been recorded in the name of Anabad Bihar Sarkar showing illegal possession of the plaintiff. He has submitted that the learned court has recorded possession in favour of the plaintiff and the respondents has not filed any cross objection or cross appeal in connection with the finding with regard to possession.

4. The learned counsel has further submitted that the finding of the learned Trial Court is essentially in one paragraph wherein the learned Trial Court has referred to Section 4 (h) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act and also by recording that the plaintiff has not proved the title of his vendor. The learned counsel submits that the title of his vendor was not in dispute in as much as no written statement was filed. The Title of the vendor was clearly mentioned in the sale deeds which were exhibited before the learned court and since the title of the vendor was not in dispute and the defendant never filed written statement claiming title or contested the title of the plaintiff, therefore there was no occasion for the learned Trial Court to decree the suit as claimed for. He has also submitted that the entry in record of rights by itself does not create or extinguish any title. He has relied upon the judgment passed by the Full Bench of Hon’ble Patna High Court reported in 1987 PLJR 354. He has also submitted that the law is equally well settled that Khatiyan by itself is not a title of the property and at best it can be a document of possession.

5. The learned counsel has submitted that the otherwise also the suit was wrongly dismissed in as much as at least the declaration of possession in favour of the plaintiff which was decided by the learned Trial Court ought to have reflected in the decree.

6. The learned counsel has also referred to the interlocutory application seeking to adduce additional evidence by submitting that the some of the deeds of the predecessor has been sought to be brought on record through the interlocutory application which are registered documents. The learned counsel has submitted that the additional evidence is sought to be adduced only by way of abundant precaution however the evidence which were produced before the learned Trial court were enough to decree the suit.

7. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has opposed the prayer and has submitted that the plaintiff has to make out a case for seeking the relief and merely because the defendant did not file the written statement or did not cross examine the witnesses of the plaintiff, same by itself is not sufficient to decree a suit. He has submitted that entry in the record of rights has great evidentiary value and there is a presumption in favour of the entry and the plain