The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of public documents such as allotment orders and finally published khatians in establishing title and possession, and the presumption of correctness under Section 43(3) of the TLR & LR Act.

Heard Mr. A. De, learned counsel appearing for the appellants as well as Mr. S. M. Chakraborty, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. D. Das, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

2. This is an appeal under Section 100 of the CPC against the reversal finding returned by the first appellate court by the judgment dated 20.04.2013 delivered in Title Appeal No.34 of 2010. For purpose of hearing, the following substantial questions of law have been formulated at the time of admission, by this court by the order dated 25.07.2013:

(i) Whether on the basis of the record of rights, a title can be presumed under Section 43(3) of the TLR & LR Act, 1960? and

(ii) Whether the learned District Judge without going into the aspect regarding the genuineness of the power of attorney has committed any illegality or not?

3. The fact as it would essentially required for appreciating those substantial questions may be introduced at the outset. The respondent instituted the suit for declaration of title and perpetual injunction against the appellants herein. The suit land which is the subject matter of the suit being Title Suit No.21 of 2008 is comprised in Khatian No.654, CS Plot No.1145/2227 of Mouja Karaiamura and also in the Khatian No.457, CS. Plot No.1150 and 1147. The total land in those 3(three) plots is 2.53 acres. According to the plaintiff, she is an allottee and she constructed a dwelling hut in an area measuring 0.20 acres comprised in C.S. plot No.1147 of Khatian No.454. In the schedule appended to the plaint, the suit land has been described with the boundaries. It appears that on the southern and the western boundaries the defendant-appellants have their land. The plaintiff has stated that she had developed the land for cultivating the paddy, mesta and chhara kachu in the plot No.1150 and 1145/2227 and by selling those produce the plaintiff had been managing her family.

4. In the year 1974 and in the year 1982 the plaintiff got allotment of the suit land in parts, even though she had been possessing the suit land since the year 1964. The defendant-appellants do not have any right, title and interest over the said land. Without any real basis, on 24.01.1992 when one senior Surveyor namely Sri D.L. Dhar was surveying the land of the plaintiff in connection with a demarcation proceeding, the defendant-appellants raised objection to him. But the demarcation proceeding was brought to its logical end and the plaintiff put permanent posting by pillar along the line of the boundary of the suit land and she has asserted that she has been uninterruptedly possessing the suit land. On 26.01.2006, the suit land was leased out to A.B.C.I. Infrastructures Private Limited, a company registered under Companies Act, 1956 and the said company was storing their stone, coal etc. during the period of lease. But the lease expired on 27.01.2008. In terms of the lease, the vacant possession was handed over to the plaintiff. The defendant-appellants had been attempting to disturb the possession of the plaintiff-respondent. As the plaintiff was suffering from various ailments she had to stay at Silchar for treatment. She nominated Sri Pintu Ranjan Ghosh as her attorney by the deed of power of attorney dated 25.06.2008 to look after the suit land. Through the said attorney the plaintiff has instituted the suit.

5. On 10.09.2008, the defendant-appellants had threatened the said attorney while he was supervising the vegetables grown in the suit land. The said attorney has been residing in a dwelling hut of the plaintiff-respondent with his family. Based on the title, decree of perpetual injunction restraining the defendant-appellants has been sought in the suit. By filing a written statement, the defendant-appellants have denied the case of the plaintiff-respondent and stated that the khatian which was finally published on 13.07.1998 is not tenable and not based on proper field inquiry. They have also denied the averment of the plaintiff that