Documentary evidence prevails over oral testimony when establishing legal relationships in property disputes.

By the Court:- Heard the learned counsel for the appellant.

2. No one turns up on behalf of the respondents in-spite of repeated calls though notices have validly been served upon the respondents. Hence, this appeal is heard ex-parte against the respondents.

3. This second appeal has been preferred under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure against the concurrent judgment and decree dated 19.09.2002 passed by the learned District Judge, Latehar in Title Appeal No.19 of 2001 whereby and where under, the learned first appellate court has dismissed the appeal and did not interfere with the judgment of dismissal of the suit passed by the learned trial court being the court of Munsif, Latehar in Title Suit No.6 of 1998 dated 17.07.2001.

4. The case of the plaintiff in brief is that the suit land was recorded in the name of Halkhori Singh and Dhani Singh. Dhani Singh died issueless and his property devolved upon his brother Halkhori Singh. Halkhori Singh has only a daughter namely Bhadwa Devi and no son and the marriage of Bhadwa Devi was solemnized with Mori Singh in gharjamai form of marriage. After death of Halkhori Singh, Bhadwa Devi and Mori Singh inherited the suit land. Bhadwa Devi and Mori Singh had no issue hence, they adopted the father of the plaintiff namely Karmu Singh and after death of Bhadwa Devi and Mori Singh, Karmu Singh became the absolute owner of the suit land and the plaintiff is the son of Karmu Singh through his second wife Moharmani Devi and thus, the plaintiff is entitled to the said suit land and he has been coming in possession of the suit land. It is further the case of the plaintiff that when the plaintiff was minor, the defendant and his brother namely Sukhu Singh have wrongly and illegally succeeded in getting their names entered in demand register II in respect of the suit land. The plaintiff had no knowledge about the opening of the demand register in the name of the defendant no.1 and after coming to know of the same, the plaintiff filed a petition in the court of Additional Collector, Palamau on 03.07.1995 for cancellation of the demand by Misc. Case No.13 of 1995. The Additional Collector, Palamau rejected the petition of the plaintiff. The plaintiff filed an appeal in the court of Commissioner, Palamau against the order of Additional Collector, Palamau vide S. Revenue Appeal No.71/96 but on 12.12.97, the Commissioner, Palamau rejected the petition of the plaintiff on the ground that Deputy Commissioner is the competent authority for appeal and thereafter, the plaintiff filed an appeal against the order of Additional Collector, Palamau in the court of Deputy Commissioner, Palamau on 08.07.98 but the Deputy Commissioner, Palamau also rejected the petition of the plaintiff in Appeal No.XV/46 of 1998. The plaintiff filed the suit with the following reliefs:-

(a) That the title of the plaintiff over the suit land be declared,

(b) That the plaintiff be put in possession over the suit land by the process of the court by evicting the defendant and be also declared to be in possession over the suit land and in case of his being found to have been illegally dispossessed be put in possession,

(c) Cost of suit and

(d) any other reliefs or relief.

5. The defendant challenged the maintainability of the suit on various technical grounds including limitation and non-joinder of necessary party. It is the case of the defendant that the suit land was recorded in