The Khatian issued under the Assam (Temporarily Settled Areas) Tenancy Act, 1971 is presumed to be correct and conclusive evidence of tenancy rights, placing the burden of proof on the party challenging it.

Judgment

1. Heard Mr. P.K. Kalita assisted by Ms. T. Goswami on behalf of the appellants. None appears on behalf of the respondents. By order dated 18.05.2012, this Court observed that despite service of notice, no one had put up appearance on behalf of the respondents and accordingly, the matter was directed to be listed for hearing. To-day also, when the matter has been called up for hearing, no one appeared on behalf of respondents. The appeal is taken up ex-parte.

2. This second appeal has been preferred by defendant Nos. 1 to 5 of the main suit, namely, Title Suit No. 206 of 1995. The suit was instituted by one Tarun Ch. Sharma (Predecessor-in-interest of present respondent Nos. 1 to 3) praying for a decree declaring that he was an occupancy tenant on a plot of land measuring (1) 3B, 1K, 10L, under Dag No. 544, (2) 4B, 0K, 3L under Dag No. 637 and (3) 7B, 0K, 5L under Dag No. 702 of K.P. No. 52 of village Teteliguri under Mouza Sanapur in the District Kamrup claiming that the said land was covered by khatian No. 1. The case of the plaintiff as pleaded in the plant is that he became an agricultural tenant under one Pranab Kumar Bora (the predecessor-in-interest Nos. 1 to 5) about 35 years, prior to the institution of the date of the suit on payment of 32 mounds of paddy per bigha per year as annual rent to the landlord. On 30.06.1976, he was given Rayoti Khatian for the said land. As tenant under aforesaid Pranab Kr. Bora (since deceased), he has been cultivating the land for more than 16 years since issuance of Khatian. According to the plaintiff, he filed application for ownership right over the land before the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup, on 13.03.1995 and the same was pending. At this time the defendant Nos. 1 to 5 in collusion with defendant No. 6 sought to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit land for which the plaintiff had to institute a proceeding before the learned Executive Magistrate under Section 145/146 Cr.P.C. and thereby the land was attached on 25.05.1995. To frustrate the said proceeding, the plaintiff further stated, the defendant Nos. 1 to 5 obtained ex-parte order under Section 144 Cr.P.C. on 08.05.1995 suppressing fact of 145/146 Cr.P.C. proceeding. Thereupon by order dated 26.05.1995, the attachment order was stayed on representation by the defendant Nos. 1 to 5. The 144 Cr.P.C. proceeding also lapsed in the meantime. Under such circumstances, the plaintiff instituted the suit claiming declaration as aforesaid, along with a prayer for declaration of temporary or permanent injunction restraining defendants, their agents or servants or any other persons claiming under them from entering into the suit land.

3. The defendant Nos. 1 to 5 contested the suit by filing written statement. The stand taken by the defendants in their written statement is that the plaintiff never held or possessed the suit land as tenant or otherwise, that he is not entitled to acquire any right of tenancy over the suit land, that the so-called Khatian was illegal and fraudulent and that the plaintiff managed to procure the same 'surreptitiously by influencing the land records staffs'. The defendants further stated that their predecessors never had any knowledge of getting such Khatian by the plaintiff and there was no field survey for the purpose. However, having come to know about the Khatian for the first time during the pendency of proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C. they filed a revision case before the Government vide RRT No. 235 of 1995 and the same was pending. On these facts, the defendants prayed that the suit of the plaintiff be dismissed with cost.

4. Upon such rival pleadings of the parties, the learned Trial Court i.e. leaned Sadar Munsiff No. 1, Guwahati, framed as many as 6 issues and the same are quoted below:

"1. Whether there is cause of action for the suit?

2. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties?

3. Whether the plaintiff is tenant in possession of the suit land unde