The presumption of truth in registered documents does not extend to factual accuracy of recitals; parties must substantiate claims with evidence.

JUDGMENT :

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)

1. This second appeal has been filed by the defendants of the suit against the judgment and decree dated 22^nd July 2019 (decree signed on 27.07.2019) passed in Civil Appeal No. 151 of 2018 by the learned District Judge-XIV, Dhanbad whereby the learned first appellate Court has reversed the judgment and decree dated 29^th June 2018 (decree signed on 12.07.2018) passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Dhanbad in Title Suit No. 114 of 2003.

2. Title Suit No. 114 of 2003 was filed by Munilal Karmakar, son of Late Uday Karmakar and Baneshwar Karmakar, son of Shri Munilal Karmakar against the defendants namely, Ram Khelawan Mallah, Krishna Mallah and Vijay Mallah, sons of late Manik Mallah. The suit was for declaration that the plaintiffs were the occupancy raiyat having title and interest over Schedule-A land and in the alternative, if the plaintiffs found dispossessed during pendency of the suit, for recovery of Khas possession thereof. A prayer was also made seeking permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their heirs etc. in connection with the suit property.

3. The suit was dismissed by the learned trial court and the appeal was allowed by the learned first appellate court. The defendants are the appellants before this Court.

4. This appeal was admitted vide order dated 26.07.2023 on the following substantial question of law:

"Whether the learned first appellate court committed perversity by considering that the recitals made in the registered settlement deed marked Ext.2 are a conclusive proof of the title of the vendor of the plaintiff?"

Arguments of the Appellants

5. The learned counsel has submitted that the appellants are the descendants of the recorded tenant whose name has been duly recorded in the record-of-rights. He has also submitted that the entries in the record-of-rights have become final and there is nothing on record to show that such entry was ever challenged.

6. Learned counsel for the appellants has also submitted that there were two proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and in both the proceedings, the plaintiffs had lost. The matter attained finality in the proceeding under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure only and the matter was contested till the stage of revision.

7. Learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that the suit was dismissed on the ground that the plaintiffs failed to prove the basis of their title. The basis of the title of the plaintiffs was the decree in rent suit, but they had neither mentioned the details of the rent suit or the date of judgment of the rent suit, nor produced the judgement and decree of the rent suit. The recitals of the registered settlement deed mentioned the Execution Case No. 664 of 1934-35 dated 15.02.1935 and date of confirmation of sale dated 18.03.1935 and also mentioned that the decree holder obtained possession on 14.09.1936, but no documents were produced on record to substantiate the said details and in absence of such documents, the learned trial Court r