Lease agreements do not confer ownership of land; independent evidence of ownership is required beyond mere entries in revenue records.

JUDGMENT

T. Amarnath Goud, J. - This is an appeal under Section 100 of the CPC against the judgment and decree dated 21.07.2016 passed by the Additional District Judge, Unakoti, Kailashahar, in the Title Appeal No. 10 of 2014.

2. At the outset, the controversy that led to filing of the suit may briefly be introduced. The appellant-plaintiff has instituted the suit Title Suit No. 41 of 2013 against the respondents for declaration of his right, title and interest over the suit immovable property and recovery of possession thereof from the defendants.

3. The plaintiff-appellant case in short compass is that the suit land measuring 1.57 acres recorded under Khatian No. 222 of Mouja Kumargath and other land originally owned by the father namely Akhil Chandra Ghosh since deceased. The said Akhil Chandra Ghosh gave jot settlement of the suit land to the plaintiff by executing a lease deed bearing no. 2861 dated 1962 accordingly, the record of right vide Khatian No. 222 of the suit land was prepared in the name of the plaintiff. The record of rights was finally published during revision survey operation during the year 1987. Thus, the plaintiff had been possessed the suit land as "RAYAT" through his men by paying revenue to the Government since the date of settlement.

4. In the plaint filed by the plaintiff before the trial court it is stated that the defendants have/had not right, title, interest or possession over any portion of the suit land and the permission granted by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant no. 1 was also revoked demanding possession while the plaintiff came to know about the said fraudulent collusive and baseless Khatian No. 1147 of the defendant No. 1 and other baseless Khatian No. 2113 and 2229 prepared in the name of the defendant Nos. 2 to 5 and as such, all the said Khatians are wrong, illegal and fraudulent and baseless and not binding on the plaintiff and the documents of transfer of land, if any, executed by the defendant No. 1 in favour of the defendant Nos. 2 to 5 are fraudulent and void and not binding on the plaintiff and the defendant No. 1 had no right to put the defendant No. 2 into possession of the suit land.

5. It is further stated in the plaint that while the plaintiff raised objection knowing the said fraudulent and baseless Khatians and illegal acts of the defendant No. 1 and requested the defendants to vacate the suit land, the defendant No. 1 came forward with a proposal of compromise and admitting the ownership and possession of the plaintiff in the suit land on 11.11.2011 she entered into a written agreement with the plaintiff to purchase the entire suit land by means of a deed at a consideration of Rs. 9,00,000/- and paid some amount as earnest money but, the said agreement was cancelled and the earnest money paid by the defendant No. 1 was also forfeited after expiry of the stipulated period and in terms of the said agreement and accordingly, the plaintiff issued notice dated 21.04.2012 through his lawyer to the defendant NO. 1 under registered post with A/D requesting to vacate the suit land but, the defendant No. 1 receiving the said notice did not give any reply and comply with the request made by the plaintiff.

6. In the written statement filed by the defendants (the respondents herein) it has been stated that No lawyer's notice dated 21.04.2012 was received by the defendant requiring to vacate the suit land was falsely alleged. It is mentionable here that, as the value of the said land has recently risen up due to formation of new sub-division, the plaintiff out of his greed for money as ex-zamindar came to defendant No. 1 a woman causing threat for filing false suit and harassment and the defendant No. 1 who is a village rustic lady out of fear came to the plaintiff to surrender to him as desired by him. Consequent upon such happenings the defendant No was compelled then to settle the matter with the plaintiff on condition to pay Rs. 9 lakhs to get rid of threat of false case and o