Legal heirs are entitled to recover possession of inherited property, while unregistered sale deeds do not confer ownership, and procedural requirements for death certificates are directory.

JUDGMENT

1. At the request of learned counsel appearing for the appellants, the following substantial questions of law have been formulated:

(i) Whether the findings given by the courts below while deciding the plaintiff's claim that they are legal heirs of deceased owner of the suit land is perverse?

(ii) Whether the findings given by the learned appellate court while deciding the issue no. (v) i.e. story of possession and dispossession over the suit land are perverse and based on no evidence?

(iii) Whether the certificates of death of late Nibashi Ghosh and Ajit Ghosh are valid in the eye of law in view of sub-section (3) of Section 13 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969?

2. Heard Mr. SS Debnath, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. P. Roy Barman, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. S. Bhattacharjee and Mr. K. Nath, learned counsel for the respondents.

3. This is a second appeal preferred by the original defendants challenging the judgment and decree dated 01.06.2018 passed by the learned District Judge, Unakoti Judicial District, Kailasahar in case No. Title Appeal 20 of 2013 arising out of the judgment and decree dated 27.06.2013 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Kailasahar in case No. Title Suit no. 45 of 2012.

4. In brief, one late Nibashi Rani Ghosh @ Nibashi Ghosh (here-in-after referred to as 'Nibashi') was the original owner of the suit land. She had only one son, namely, Ajit Ghosh. Both of them died. After their death, the respondents no. 1 and 2 i.e. the plaintiffs have become the owner of the suit land by way of inheritance. Respondents no. 1 and 2 are the daughter-in-law and grandson of Nibashi being the wife and son of late Ajit Ghosh, respectively. According to the respondents no. 1 and 2, the appellants had entered into the suit land illegally and started to forcibly possess the suit land since 22nd October, 2006, which they came to know through their relative. They requested the appellants to handover the possession of the land, but, the appellants had refused. Hence, the cause of action for filing the present suit arose.

5. The appellant-defendants [here-in-after referred to as 'defendants'] after receipt of summons appeared and contested the suit by filing written statement. In the written statement, the defendants have stated that the plaintiffs i.e. the respondents no. 1 and 2 [here-in-after referred to as the 'plaintiffs'], are not the rightful owners of the suit land, and further Nibashi Rani Ghosh was not their mother-in-law. It is the case of the defendants that Nibashi had transferred the suit land in favour of the defendants by way of an unregistered Sale Deed and permitted them to possess the same. The defendants also have challenged the survival and death certificate of Nibashi Rani Ghosh as well as survival certificate of Ajit Ghosh, on the ground that those were not issued in accordance with the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 [for short 'Act, 1969'] where Section 13 stipulates that any birth or death which has not been registered within one year of its occurrence shall be registered only on an order made by a Magistrate of the 1st class or a Presidency Magistrate after verifying the correctness of the birth or death and on payment of the prescribed fee. In the instant case, the plaintiffs have produced the death certificates of late Nibashi Rani Ghosh and late Ajit Ghosh which were not issued by the Magistrate, 1st class as per sub-section (3) of Section 13 of the said Act, 1969, and it was issued by the BDO [Block Development Officer]. The defendants have further stated that they have been possessing the land for the last 20/21 years i.e. since 1991 when the original owner Nibashi Rani Ghosh had put them into possession after execution of an unregistered Sale Deed (Exbt. E), and also constructed permanent structure over the suit land. For that reason, the defendants have stated that the cause of action of instituting the present suit