A certified copy of a sale deed, while a public document, is not automatically admissible to prove title when the execution is denied by the alleged vendor and there exist material discrepancies between pleadings and evidence, necessitating strict compliance with Section 65 of the Evidence Act.

ORDER

Heard Mr. N. Haque, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. R. Goswami, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. By filing this appeal under Section 100 of the CPC, the appellant has assailed the judgment and order dated 18.05.2009, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Barpeta in Title Appeal No. 12 of 2008, and the consequential decree by which the said appeal was dismissed, and the judgment and decree dated 24.03.2008 passed by the learned Munsiff, Bajali at Pathshala in T.S. No. 1 of 2007 was affirmed.

3. In brief, the case of the appellant is that he had filed a suit against the respondents for a declaration of right, title, and interest, and for recovery of khas possession by evicting the respondent-defendants from the suit land described in Schedule B (out of the land described in Schedule A of the plaint), for the removal of the house described in Schedule C of the plaint, and for a permanent injunction. The said suit was registered as Title Suit No. 1 of 2007. It is stated that in the plaint, apart from the 8 respondents as defendants, there are two proforma defendants. Defendant Nos. 1, 2, and 3 contested the suit by filing their written statement, denying the execution of the sale deed, asserting their possession of the suit land, and claiming the sale deed to be forged.

4. In the course of the trial, the learned trial Court framed nine issues, which are as follows:

1. Whether plaintiff has right, title and interest over suit land?

2. Whether plaintiff purchased “Schedule A” land vide registered Sale Deed No. 2659/05?

3. Whether registered sale deed No. 2659/05 is a forged one?

4. Whether the defendants dispossessed the plaintiff from the suit land on 25-1-07 thereby erecting thatched house and planting trees?

5. Whether there is cause of action for the suit?

6. Whether suit is valued properly and proper court fee paid thereof?

7. Whether suit is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties?

8. Whether suit is barred by law of limitation?

9. To what relief/reliefs parties are entitled to?

5. In support of the plaint, the petitioner examined four witnesses and exhibited five documents, being a certified copy of the registered sale deed No. 2689/05 (Ext.1), original land revenue payment receipts for the years 2000-2001, 2004-2005, and 2005-2006 (Ext. Nos. 2, 3, and 4), and a certified copy of the Jamabandi (Ext. 5).

6. The contesting respondents had also examined four witnesses and had exhibited a certified copy of the Jamabandi (Ext. Ka), a certified copy of the Chitha (Ext. Kha), and the original registered sale deed No. 3087/75 dated 25.11.1975 (Ext. Ga).

7. In respect of issue No. 2, the learned trial Court, on the basis of evidence on record, recorded a finding that in the pleadings, the number of the certified copy of the sale deed is 2689/05. As per the pleadings in the first paragraph, it is claimed that the scheduled suit land was bought from the proforma defendant, Mokshed Ali, by registered sale deed No. 2659/05. In the evidence-on-affidavit of PW-1, the petitioner stated the number of the registered sale deed as 2659/05, whereas PW-3 referred to the said registered sale deed number as 2359/05. As per the evidence of Abed Ali (PW-4), the original sale deed was with the office of the Sub-Registrar, Barpeta. However, the vendor Mokshed Ali, proforma defendant No. 2 examined as DW-3, denied having sold any land to the appellant and according to him, he was the owner of only 2 katha 10 lessas of land in Dag No. 299.

8. The learned