The central legal point established in the judgment is that title to an immovable property is established only by the document of title and not by the record of right, and the burden lies on the plaintiff to prove his case.

JUDGMENT

. This second appeal under Section 100 of CPC is directed against the judgment and decree dated 18.09.2004 passed by learned Addl. District Judge, North Tripura, Kailashahar in Title Appeal No. 01 of 2004, whereunder, the learned Addl. District Judge upheld the judgment and decree of dismissal dated 01.12.2003 passed by learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Kailashahar, North Tripura in Title Suit No. 06 of 1997.

2. Heard learned counsel, Mr. D.K. Biswas for the appellant and learned counsel, Mrs. P. Dhar for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. No representation on behalf of the other respondents.

3. By order dated 18.01.2005 the second appeal has been admitted for hearing on the following substantial questions of law:

(i) Whether section 43(3) of the TLR & LR Act can be treated to be a better evidence than the title deeds and whether entry in the Record of Right finally published can be axiomatically the final proof of title and is not liable to be disproved by title deed?

(ii) Whether section 43 of the TLR & LR Act has been correctly interpreted by the learned court below in dismissing the suit of the plaintiff?

(iii) Whether the section 43 of the TOP Act has been correctly interpreted by the trial court in disposing of the suit?

3.1. In the course of hearing learned counsel, Mr. D.K. Biswas for the appellant has submitted that the substantial question of law formulated on 18.01.2005, in true sense, cannot be termed as a substantial question of law for hearing the present second appeal and therefore does not like to insist on those substantial questions of law and further prayed for formulating a fresh substantial question of law on the point of perversity of the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and affirmed by the appellate Court. Learned counsel, Mrs. Dhar also has submitted that the substantial question of law formulated on 18.01.2005 cannot be termed as a substantial question of law and on that ground alone the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

3.2. After hearing learned counsel of both side, I consider it appropriate to formulate the following substantial question of law for hearing the appeal, namely--

Whether the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and affirmed by first appellate Court suffer from perversity?

3.3. The appeal is accordingly heard on the above substantial question of law.

4. The appellant, as plaintiff instituted Title Suit No. 06 of 1997 in the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Kailashahar, North Tripura, seeking declaration of right, title and interest and confirmation of possession in the suit land described in the schedule of the plaint measuring 0.46 acres which appertains to old CS Plot No. 196 corresponding to CS Plot No. 383 of Khatian No. 290 of Mouja-Gournagar and also prayed for perpetual injunction restraining the defendant Nos. 1 to 3 from interfering with peaceful possession of the plaintiff in the suit land.

5. The appellant(hereinafter mentioned as plaintiff), inter alia, contended that land measuring 3.70 acres originally belonged to three brothers, namely Uttam Debnath, Chaitanya Debnath and Netai Debnath and they got the land partitioned in equal share between themselves and each of them got 1.23 acres. Uttam Debnath died leaving behind two sons, namely Binanda Debnath and Surendra Debnath and they equally inherited the property of Uttam Debnath. Chaitanya Debnath died leaving behind two sons, namely Jogendra Debnath and Jatindra Debnath and they inherited the share of Chaitanya Debnath. Nitai Debnath died leaving behind his only son Ananda Debnath and he inherited the share of Nitai Debnath. Initially, a joint khatian was prepared in the name of all the legal heirs of Uttam Debnath, Chaitanya Debnath and Nitai Debnath but subsequently at the time of settlement operation, separate khatian was prepared in the names of the respective owners, i.e. the heirs of Uttam Debnath, Chaitanya Debnath and Nitai Debnath. The share of Chaitanya Debnat