A Parcha slip (draft record of rights) issued by a public servant in due discharge of his official duty is admissible in evidence. The High Court can determine an issue of fact in second appeal if the evidence on record is sufficient. A person in possession of land without title has an interest which is heritable and transferable.

JUDGMENT :

Misra, J. - Plaintiff purchased the disputed - land by a registered sale deed (Ex. 6) on 13-5-60 from Defendant, No. 2, son of late Bodhi Naik. Plaintiff's Case is that the disputed land was the Mehenter Jagir land of Bodhi Naik and he was in enjoyment and possession of the same rent free in lieu of services being rendered to the ex-Ruler of Athgarh and his family members. He was in possession in his own right, title and interest till death. In the settlement records of the year 1922, the Jagir appears to have been resumed without the knowledge of Bodhi and Aparti (Defendant no, 2). Despite it, however, they continued in possession as tenants after rendering the usual services. In 1956, Defendant No. 2 obtained the Parcha (Ex. 1) in the current settlement. In 1960, Defendant No. 1 having no right, title and interest attempted to interfere with the possession of the Plaintiff resulting in a number of criminal cases on either side. Plaintiff accordingly asks for declaration of title, confirmation .of possession and in the alternative for recovery of possession, for permanent injunction and for recovery of Rs. 100/ - as being the value of the crop forcibly removed by Defendant No. 1. Defendant No. 2 fully supported the Plaintiff's case

Defendant No. 1 contested the suit alleging that long prior to the 1922 settlement the suit land was lying fallow. Nobody was in possession of the same. Accordingly, it was resumed by the State. About fifteen years before the suit, Defendant No. 1 reclaimed the suit land if in possession since then by raising paddy crop thereon. He has made an application to the State for granting a lease of the land in his favour and the matter is under consideration.

2. The learned Munsif held that Defendant No. 2 and before him his father were holding the suit land as Mehenter Jagir and were in possession thereof and Defendant No. 1 did not acquire any title by adverse possession. On the finding that Ex. 6 was genuine and for consideration, be decreed the Plaintiff's suit.

The learned lower appellate Court dismissed the suit on the finding that Plaintiff failed to prove title and possession within twelve years of the suit. It also examined the question whether Defendant No. 1 was a rank trespasser dispossessing the Plaintiff of his prior possession. On the finding that evidence of possession on both the sides was unsatisfactory, it did not grant the relief of possession also.

3. Mr. Das contends that the learned lower appellate Court acted contrary to law in rejecting Plaintiff's title and possession within twelve years of the suit. He traced out the history of this case with reference to the documentary evidence. The Khatian (Ex. 4) of the year between 1890 and 1899 shows that Bodhi Naik, father of Defendant No. 2 was recorded in respect of the disputed land. The description of the land was Chakran Jagir. In the Yadadasta (Ex.5) dated 14-9-22, prior to the final publication of the Khatian, the land was stated to be Mehenter Jagir, but as nobody appeared at the time when the record of rights were being prepared, a suggestion was given to resume the land. In the finally published record of rights (Ex. B), the land was recorded as Rajsarkar in 1922. Thereafter in 1956, the Parch a (Ex. 1) was issued in favour of Defendant No. 2. The trial Court decree was passed on 3-2-62. The final record of rights (Ex. 10) was issued in favour of the Plaintiff in January, 1963. It was accepted as additional evidence in this Court under order XLI Rule 27, CPC Code.

Defendant No. 2 was, therefore, not an utter stranger in respect of the disputed land. It was the Mehenter Jagir of his father. The reason for the resumption in 1922 as found from the Yadadasta (Ex. 5) is that nobody appeared before the Settlement Officer when enquiry was being made. It is, however, not necessary to go in to the question of title, as in this case on the materials on record Plaintiff's case of his and his vendor's possession has been satisfactorily