The presumption of correctness of entries in the record of rights under the Bihar Land Reforms Act is rebuttable, and mere possession does not confer title without proof of vendor's title.

JUDGMENT :

ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY, J.

1. This first appeal has been filed against the Judgement dated 22.06.2023 and decree sealed and signed on 30.06.2023 passed by the learned Civil Judge, (Sr. Div.)-X, Dhanbad in Original Suit No. 258 of 2022 whereby and whereunder the suit has been dismissed.

2. The suit was filed by the plaintiff for the following reliefs:

(a) For a decree for declaration of proposed plaintiff right, title, interest and confirmation of possession over schedule land, alternatively, if proposed plaintiff be found dispossessed lis-pendens, then recovery of khas possession thereof.

(b) For a decree for rectification of Record of right in the name of proposed plaintiff after deleting the name of “ANABAD BIHAR SARKAR” (Now Jharkhand), the proposed defendants.

(c) For a decree for permanent injunction restraining proposed defendants their men, agents and servants from interfering in any manner with proposed plaintiff settled possession and/or from parting with any portion of the suit land by the proposed defendants on the strength of such wrong and frivolous entries in record of rights.

(d) For cost of the suit.

(e) For any other and further relief or reliefs for which the proposed plaintiff entitled to.

Arguments of the appellant

3. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the suit was decided ex-parte. Neither the defendants appeared in the case, nor they filed their written statement, nor they cross-examined any of the witnesses of the plaintiff. He submitted that the suit was filed on the basis of registered deeds of sale executed in favour of the plaintiff. 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, it will be put in possession of the property.

4. The learned counsel submitted that the cause of action arose when an entry in the record of rights 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 submitted that the learned court has recorded possession in favour of the plaintiff and the respondents have not filed any cross objection or cross appeal in connection with the finding with regard to possession.

5. The learned counsel 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 recorded that the plaintiff has not proved the title of his vendor. The learned counsel submitted that the title of his vendor was not in dispute inasmuch as no written statement was filed. The title of the vendor was clearly mentioned in the sale deeds which were exhibited before the learned Trial Court and since the title of the vendor was not in dispute and the defendants never filed written statements claiming title or contested the title of the plaintiff, therefore there was no occasion for the learned Trial Court to dismiss the suit. 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 the Hon’ble Patna High Court reported in 1987 PLJR 354 (FB) (Paritosh Maity and etc. -vs- Ghasiram Maity and another). He 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.

6. It is submitted that it is well-settled that Khatiyan is not a document of title. Reference has been made to judgment reported in 2007 (11) SCC 736 Para 22 (Narayan Prasad Agarwal (D) by Lirs- vs-State of MP).

7. It is also submitted that it is well settled that registered deed has presumption of correctness. Reference has been made to the judgment reported in (2006)5 SCC 353 (Prem Singh -Vs- Birbalj and 2007(14) Scale 627 (Asokan -Vs- Lakhmi Kutty & o