Eviction decrees require proper land assessment and evidence, not mere allegations.

1. Heard Mr. D. R. Chowdhury, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. D. Debnath, learned counsel appearing for the defendant / appellant. Also heard Mr. D. C. Roy, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff / respondent.

2. This is a second appeal preferred by the defendant / appellant against the judgment and decree passed by the learned first appellate court as well as the trial court. At the time of admission of this appeal, following substantial questions of law had been formulated: -
"(I) Whether without ascertaining the actual quantum of land under the possession of a person duly purchased by registered Sale Deed and recorded in finally published Khatian an eviction decree can be passed against him on the basis of allegation made by a third party.
(II) Whether the Ld. Appellate Court below rendered its judgment totally perverse in the eye of law because of non - appreciation of the documents submitted from the side of the Appellant in support of her title and possession (Exhibit A, B, C)."

3. Briefly stated, the defendant / appellant had purchased a plot bearing no. - (sabek) 1142/4169 in the year 1974 from the Vendor Ramesh Chandra Sarkar. It is the case of the defendant / appellant that she purchased a plot of land from the vendor measuring 10 gandas and it is the case of the plaintiff / respondent that he purchased a land measuring 5 gandas from the same vendor and from the same plot of land bearing no. - (sabek) 1142/4169. The defendant / appellant took over physical possession of her land measuring 10 gandas after the purchase of the said in the year 1974. The plaintiff / respondent also took over physical possession after the purchase of his land in the year 1982, but, he had been residing at a place which was stated at a distance of 8 kilometers away from the suit land. The plaintiff / respondent found that the defendant / appellant had forcibly entered into his land and took over possession. Hence he filed the suit for declaration of right, title and interest and recovery of possession of the suit land.
3.1. During the course of trial and after exchange of pleadings between the parties to the suit, issues were framed and on the basis of those issues evidences were let in by the parties. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the learned trial court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff / respondent.
3.2. It is the specific finding of the learned trial court that before filing of the suit a proceeding was initiated by the SDM who passed an order for demarcation. Accordingly, one Deputy Collector and Magistrate during demarcation process, demarcated the land of the plaintiff / respondent and the defendant / appellant.
3.3. During the course of trial, the said demarcation report had been put on evidence and the said report had been accepted by the court.
3.4. The relevant finding of the learned trial court may be produced hereinbelow, for convenience, in extenso: -
"The contention of the plaintiff also got a support by the inquiry report prepared by R.I., Sadar which admitted un - disputedly into evidence and was marked as exbit.4. The relevant portion of the report of the R.I. reads as under: -
"During demarcation the local people stated that whereas land of Anjali Palraj area matching with record map and physical ...... 1st party Sri Sugrib Kumar Reli is absolute owner of R.S. Plot No.2032, L/M - 0.10 acres and Anjali Palraj will must be released the illegal possession of R.S. Plot No.2032.
During completion of demarcation pillars could not be posted as the 2nd party Anjal