The burden of proof lies on the party asserting ownership or adverse possession, and mere entries in khatian records do not suffice to establish title without supporting evidence.

JUDGMENT

This appeal by the plaintiff under Section 100 of the CPC arises from the judgment dated 05.02.2021 delivered in Title Appeal No.39 of 2018 by the District Judge, West Tripura, Agartala. Having noted that the plaintiffs have proved their title over the suit land, but they have failed to prove any cause of action to institute the suit, the Civil Judge who tried the suit denied to give any consequential relief as sought. Reliefs sought by the plaintiffs are as follows:

(a) a decree declaring that the Plaintiffs have right, title and interest over the suit land;

(b) a decree for recovery of possession of the suit land by evicting the Defendants and handing over the vacant possession to the Plaintiffs, and

(c) a decree of perpetual injunction restraining the Defendants and their men and agent from entering into the suit land.

02. The suit land is situated in mouja Indranagar under Sadar Sub-division, West Tripura District appertaining to Khatians No.3351 and 10720, CS Plots No.PB-4079 and 42/P corresponding to R.S (Hal) Plot No.124 and 124/20696 and measuring 2.48 acre. The suit land has been more elaborately described in the schedule appended to the plaint. The judgment dated 24.09.2018 passed in the Title Suit 73 of 2014 was challenged by the plaintiffs under Section 96 of the CPC in the court of the District Judge, West Tripura, Agartala being Title Appeal 39 of 2019. By the judgment dated 05.02.2021, as challenged in this appeal, the said first appeal has been dismissed. The District Judge has having reappraised the evidence observed that the plaintiffs have failed to clarify how they have got the suit land from their father whether it was by inheritance or by any sort of transfer and if it was a case of transfer what quantum of land was transferred to them by their father. They are not even disclosing when their father died in order to establish their claim over the suit land by way of inheritance. Apart from the deficiency in the pleading, the plaintiffs have ignored to place the evidence in these regards. In contrast to the observation made by the Civil Judge that the record of rights can be made the basis for declaring title, a decision of the Gauhati High Court (at Agartala Bench) titled as Naresh Chandra Deb and Others vs. Kamini Mohan Deb reported in AIR 1979 NOC 169 has been relied on.

03. The first appellate court has observed that:

“….as there are apparent anamoly in the revisional and present khatians in recording of quantum of suit land in related RS Plots. Thus, right, title, interest of Plaintiffs also cannot be declared solely basing on the entries available in the Khatians as this stands.”

04. The first appellate court has further observed that the plaintiffs have failed to prove their right, title and interest in the suit land and therefore, they are not entitled to get the reliefs as prayed for. For a different set of reasons, the judgment by the Civil Judge has been affirmed but finding of the title in favour of the plaintiffs has been impliedly set aside. Briefly stated the petitioner’s case is that the predecessor of the plaintiffs namely Pramod Chandra Deb died long ago. After his death, the plaintiffs became the owner and the possessor of the suit land jointly being legal heirs of Pramod Chandra Deb. It is the statement of the plaintiffs that in the month of June, 2008, the plaintiffs permitted the defendants to cultivate the suit land for a period of three years with condition that half of the harvest be shared with the plaintiffs yearly. On 15.08.2015, the plaintiffs had requested t