Page No.# 1/17 GAHC010068212023 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : RSA/96/2023 JARINA KHATUN AND 4 ORS. D/O LATE JONOUDDI SK, VILL.- SINDURAI PT-II, P.O.- BELGURI, P.S.- AGOMONI, DIST.- DHUBRI, ASSAM. 2: KASHEMA KHATUN S/O LATE HOBIBUR RAHMAN VILL.- SINDURAI PT- II P.O.- BELGURI P.S.- AGOMONI DIST.- DHUBRI ASSAM. 3: JYOSHNA KHATUN D/O LATE JONOUDDI SK VILL.- SINDURAI PT- II P.O.- BELGURI P.S.- AGOMONI DIST.- DHUBRI ASSAM. 4: MOYZUDDIN SK S/O LATE JONOUDDI SK Page No.# 2/17 VILL.- SINDURAI PT- II P.O.- BELGURI P.S.- AGOMONI DIST.- DHUBRI ASSAM. 5: MOINUL SK S/O LATE JONOUDDI SK VILL.- SINDURAI PT- II P.O.- BELGURI P.S.- AGOMONI DIST.- DHUBRI ASSAM VERSUS MERAJUL HOQUE AND 23 ORS. S/O LATE HOBIBUR RAHMAN, VILL.- SINDURAI PT- II, P.O.- BELGURI, P.S.- AGOMONI, DIST.- DHUBRI, ASSAM. 2:MOZAHAR ALI S/O LATE HOBIBUR RAHMAN VILL.- SINDURAI PT- II P.O.- BELGURI P.S.- AGOMONI DIST.- DHUBRI ASSAM. 3:MOTIAR RAHMAN S/O LATE HOBIBUR RAHMAN VILL.- SINDURAI PT- II P.O.- BELGURI Page No.# 3/17 P.S.- AGOMONI DIST.- DHUBRI ASSAM. 4:AMANUR RAHMAN S/O LATE HOBIBUR RAHMAN VILL.- SINDURAI PT- II P.O.- BELGURI P.S.- AGOMONI DIST.- DHUBRI ASSAM. 5:KAZIRA KHATUN D/O LATE HOBIBUR RAHMAN VILL.- SINDURAI PT- II P.O.- BELGURI P.S.- AGOMONI DIST.- DHUBRI ASSAM. 6:NAZIMA KHATUN S/O LATE HOBIBUR RAHMAN VILL.- SINDURAI PT- II P.O.- BELGURI P.S.- AGOMONI DIST.- DHUBRI ASSAM. 7:HASINA KHATUN S/O LATE HOBIBUR RAHMAN VILL.- SINDURAI PT- II P.O.- BELGURI Page No.# 4/17 P.S.- AGOMONI DIST.- DHUBRI ASSAM. 8:MOZITON BEWA W/O LATE HOBIBUR RAHMAN VILL.- SINDURAI PT- II P.O.- BELGURI P.S.- AGOMONI DIST.- DHUBRI ASSAM. 9:ZANNATULLAH SK S/O LT. DHOLA SK VILL.- SINDURAI PT- II P.O.- BELGURI P.S.- AGOMONI DIST.- DHUBRI ASSAM. 10:HOBBOR ALI S/O AFAZUDDIN VILL.- SINDURAI PT- II P.O.- BELGURI P.S.- AGOMONI DIST.- DHUBRI ASSAM. 11:MORZINA BEWA W/O LT. MEHER ALI VILL.- SINDURAI PT- II P.O.- BELGURI Page No.# 5/17 P.S.- AGOMONI DIST.- DHUBRI ASSAM. 12:ABDUL KADER S/O LT. KASHEM ALI VILL.- SINDURAI PT- II P.O.- BELGURI P.S.- AGOMONI DIST.- DHUBRI ASSAM. 13:ANSER ALI S/O LT. ABDUL SK VILL.- SINDURAI PT- II P.O.- BELGURI P.S.- AGOMONI DIST.- DHUBRI ASSAM. 14:HOBI SK S/O HASIM ALI VILL.- SINDURAI PT- II P.O.- BELGURI P.S.- AGOMONI DIST.- DHUBRI ASSAM. 15:SOMSHER ALI S/O KNOWNON VILL.- SINDURAI PT- II P.O.- BELGURI Page No.# 6/17 P.S.- AGOMONI DIST.- DHUBRI ASSAM. 16:MOMENA BEWA W/O LT. ASKER ALI VILL.- SERNAHAR AGOMONI P.S.- GOLAKGANJ DIST.- DHUBRI. 17:ASMA KHATUN D/O LT. ASKER ALI VILL.- SERNAHAR AGOMONI P.S.- GOLAKGANJ DIST.- DHUBRI. 18:LAILY BIBI D/O LT. ASKER ALI W/O TALEB ALI R/O I.G. ROAD W/NO. 14 P.S. AND DIST.- DHUBRI ASSAM. 19:ANOWARA BIBI D/O LT. ASKER ALI W/O BELLA SK VILL.- KALDOBA PT- III P.S.- GOLAKGANJ DIST.- DHUBRI ASSAM. 20:AKLIMA BIBI W/O LT. ASKER ALI W/O ABU BAKKAR SIDDIQUE VILL.- NALIA PT- II Page No.# 7/17 P.S.- GOLAKGANJ DIST.- DHUBRI ASSAM. 21:ANJUMA BIBI D/O LT. ASKER ALI W/O MOINUL HOQUE VILL.- FULKUMARI PT- I P.S.- GAURIPUR DIST.- DHUBRI ASSAM. 22:MANJUMA BIBI D/O LT. ASKER ALI W/O SAHIDUL SARKAR VILL.- SER NAHAR AGOMONI P.S.- GOLAKGANJ DIST.- DHUBRI. 23:MOMEDUR ALI S/O LT. ASKER ALI VILL.- SER NAHAR AGOMONI P.S.- GOLAKGANJ DIST.- DHUBRI ASSAM. 24:POYEZUDDIN SK S/O LT. DHOKHOL ALI VILL.- JHASKAL P.S.- GOLAKGANJ DIST.- DHUBRI ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR M H AHMED, MR. G A CHOUDHURY,I AMIN Advocate for the Respondent : , Page No.# 8/17 B E F O R E HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA ORDER 02.03.2026 Heard Mr. M.H Ahmed, learned counsel for the appellants. Also heard the learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This second appeal has been preferred by the plaintiffs/appellants challenging the concurrent findings of fact by the learned trial court as well as the first appellate court. 3. The plaintiff-appellant had instituted a suit, being Title Suit No. 300/2011, before the learned Munsiff No.1, Dhubri, and therein, the case of the plaintiff was that Lt. Jonuddi Sk. was the owner and possessor of the land described in Schedule 'A' and patta was issued in his name. Jonuddi Sk died leaving behind the plaintiffs as his legal heirs. Accordingly, the plaintiffs inherited the Schedule 'A' land from Lt. Jonuddi Sk. Plaintiffs and the proforma defendants have also inherited the Schedule 'B' and 'C' land which stood in the name of Khiron Bewa (deceased grandmother of plaintiff Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5 & 6 and mother-in-law of plaintiff No.1) and Osimon Bibi (aunt of plaintiff Nos. 2 to 6, father's sister and sister-in-law of plaintiff No.1). But the proforma defendants have relinquished their claim over Schedule 'B' & 'C' land. 4. The plaintiffs aver that they are residing in a part of Schedule 'A' land by Page No.# 9/17 constructing a residential house, which is described in Schedule 'D'. It is further averred by the plaintiffs that they allowed defendant No.1 to stay in a part of Schedule 'E', 'F' and 'G' land as a tenant, which are parts of Schedule 'A' land, and in return defendant No.1 agreed to give one-third share of the cultivated products to the plaintiffs. However, with the passage of time defendant No.1 discontinued giving the agreed one-third share of crops to the plaintiffs. Therefore, on 11.03.2011, the plaintiff Nos.1, 5 & 6 asked defendant No.1 to vacate their land for their own cultivation purposes, but defendant No.1 refused to do so and started claiming the Schedule 'B', 'C', 'E', 'F' & 'G' land as his purchased land from Lt. Jonuddi Sk. Thereafter, defendant No.1 transferred the land to other defendants by delivering possession. The defendants have no right, title or interest over the suit land shown in the schedule below and they cannot acquire title by virtue of the alleged sale deeds. Hence, the suit. 5. The case of the defendant Nos.1, 3 to 8, as laid down in the written statements in brief, is that Jonuddi Sk., Askar Ali, Dokhol Ali and Osimon Bewa are the children of Misil Sk. and Khorion Bewa. It was Osimon Bibi, and not Jonuddi Sk., who was the owner of land measuring Schedule 'D' land (1K-14L covered by Patta No.271, Dag No.587/392). Soleman Sk., being the son of Osimon Bibi, inherited the said land after the death of Osimon Bibi. Subsequently, Soleman Sk. had gifted the said Schedule 'D' land to his son Md. Page No.# 10/17 Meher Ulla Sk. @ Meher Ali by registered Gift Deed No.1020 dated 28.09.1994, who is also the husband of defendant No.4. Jonuddi Sk. owned Schedule 'E', 'F' and 'G' land, and during his lifetime he sold 12 lechas land out of 4K-17L mentioned in Schedule 'E', part of Schedule 'A', to defendant No.1 Hobibor Rahman by registered Sale Deed No.4858 dated 23.03.1984 by delivering possession thereof. Later, defendant No.1 sold the said land out of 4K-17L of Schedule land to defendant No.5 and his three brothers, namely Abdul Jalil, Abdul Gafur and Abdul Sattar, by registered Sale Deed No.7930 dated 06.09.1969 by delivering possession. 6. It is further stated that Jonuddi Sk. sold 1K-10L land out of 4K-10L mentioned in Schedule 'F', which is part of Schedule 'A', to one Kosmoti Bewa by delivering possession thereof by registered Sale Deed No.10082 dated 14.11.1972. Kosmoti Bewa had one granddaughter named Khotikjan Bibi, and after the death of her grandmother and mother, Khotikjan Bibi inherited the said property of 1K-10L and sold the said land to defendant No.5 by delivering possession thereof by registered Sale Deed No.3264 dated 18.08.1977. 7. It is further stated that Jonuddi Sk. sold 2K-10L land out of 4K-10L of Schedule 'F', a part of Schedule 'A', to one Abdul Rezzaque, son of Late Soku Sk., by delivering possession thereof by registered Sale Deed No.6161 dated Page No.# 11/17 09.06.1970. Later Abdul Rezzak sold the said land measuring 2K-10L to defendant No.5 Abdul Kader by registered Sale Deed No.3265 dated 18.08.1977. 8. As regards the land of Khairon Bewa (Schedule 'B'), the defendants have stated that after the death of Khairon Bewa, her two sons, namely Jonuddi Sk. and Aksar Ali, inherited Schedule 'B' land, and during their lifetimes they sold the entire Schedule 'B' land to defendant No.1 by delivering possession thereof by registered Sale Deed No.1705 dated 29.01.1969. 9. As regards the land of Osimon Bibi (Schedule 'C'), the defendants have stated that Soleman Sk. @ Ali, son of Osimon Bibi, sold 1K-18L out of 1 bigha mentioned in Schedule 'C' land to one Dhola Sk., father of defendant No.8 Somser Ali, by delivering possession thereof by registered Sale Deed No.8953 dated 09.07.1993. One Poyjuddin Sk. @ Joyuddin Sk., son of Dokhol Ali, sold out of 2B-2K land mentioned in Schedule 'C' covered by Dag No.393 to defendant No.1, and the remaining 1K-4L land in Schedule 'C' covered by Dag No.393 is included within the said land of 1 bigha. 10. After the death of defendant No.1, his legal heirs submitted their written statement challenging the maintainability of the suit. They have pleaded that after the death of defendant No.1, they inherited the suit land. Late Habibor Rahman had purchased the suit land from Jonuddi Sk. vide several sale deeds Page No.# 12/17 and during his lifetime had transferred some parts of the suit land to other defendants. The suit are to be dismissed by the learned trial court. 11. Being aggrieved, the plaintiff preferred an appeal before the learned Civil Judge, Dhubri which ultimately came to be dismissed by the impugned order dated 21.12.2022 in Title Appeal No. 35/2019. The appellant has formulated the following substantial questions of law:- “(i) Substantial question of law arises as to whether the first Appellant Court has committed grave error in facts and law, exceeded the jurisdiction and arrived into a wrong and perverse finding by misappreciation of facts and wrong interpretation of law without applying his judicious mind. (ii) Substantial question of law arises as to whether the findings and decision of the First Appellate Court reversing issue Nos. 1 & 3 as regards maintainability of the suit and non-joinder and misjoinder of necessary party respectively when those findings 6 and decision of the Learned Munsiff Court were not challenged by the respondents, is uncalled for and beyond jurisdiction. (iii) Substantial question of law arises as to whether the Xerox copies of the sale deeds (Exbts.......) are admissible in law and on that basis the appellants' right, title and interest w.r.t. the scheduled land can be denied, when it is the specific case as per pleadings of appellants/plaintiffs that the defendants ns collusion with the revenue officials got their names entered into the revenue record. Page No.# 13/17 (iv) Substantial question of law arises as to whether the right, title and interest of the appellants can be denied merely on the basis of such revenue records in absence of original sale deed by which the defendants claimed right, title and possession over the suit land. (vi) Substantial question of law arises as to whether the burden of proof of authenticity of the sale deeds was shifted to the defendants u/s 106 of the Indian Evidence Act when their pleaded case is that their names have been mutated on the basis of registered sale deed. Substantial question of law arises as to whether section 110 of Indian Evidence Act has been properly interpreted and Sections 31 & 34 of the Specific Relied Act have any application in the case when the plaintiffs pleaded that on collusion of the revenue officials the names of the defendants were recorded in the revenue records and on that basis the claim of plaintiffs over the property can be negated.” At this juncture, it would be apposite to refer to the findings of the learned first appellate court. 12. 12. The learned court, amongst other grounds, had formulated the following ground, i.e., whether the suit land under the possession of the defendant was purchased by the defendants from the predecessor of the plaintiff or whether the plaintiff has exclusive right, title, interest and possession over the suit land. The appellate court found that it is an admitted position that the defendants are in possession of a part of the suit land. Though the claim of the plaintiffs is that Page No.# 14/17 they are the exclusive owners of the land as described in Schedule-A to G by way of inheritance, and the defendants are tenants under them, the defendants had claimed that the part of the suit land was purchased by the predecessors of the defendants and that they have been in possession by virtue of a purchase deed. 13. It also found that the evidence on record disclosed that the plaintiff has exhibited as many as four documents i.e. certified copy of Khatian, Jamabandi, Khachara, and draft chita which were marked as Ext. 1, 2, 3 & 4 respectively and they had also adduced the evidence of two official witnesses of revenue branch i.e. Sr. Asstt., as PW-3, and Late Mondal, as PW-5, to substantiate their case. But the aforesaid exhibited documents, particularly Exhibits 2, 3 and 4, along with the evidence of PWs-3 and 4, who are official witnesses, disclosed that no land was found standing in the name of the predecessors of the plaintiffs in Schedule-B & C, as the same had been sold out by the predecessor of the plaintiffs in favor of the predecessor of defendant No. 1, who subsequently sold the same to other defendants. And apart from that, the aforesaid exhibited documents and the versions of the PWs also make it clear that the land of Schedule-A, D & G is jointly recorded in the name of the predecessor of the plaintiff Lt. Jonuddi Sk and one Hobi Sk i.e., defendant No. 7, and according to official record, Hobi Sk had purchased part of the suit land Page No.# 15/17 measuring 1 Bigha 2 Kotha by a registered sale deed way back in the year 1965 from late Jonnudi Sk from the suit dag and patta, and that the version of PW-4 also makes it clear that as per official record the predecessor of the plaintiff, namely Jonuddi Sk had sold the land of Schedule-E to Habibur Rahman, Abdul Gadye, Abdul Jalil and Abdul Sattar, and also sold the land of Schedule-F to Kosmoti Bewa and Soleman Sk. From the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it has become crystal clear that the defendants are occupying the suit land on the strength of purchase deeds. And therefore, the preponderance of probability lies in favor of the defendants. 14. The learned trial court had also returned similar findings and it had held on the basis of the same evidence and exhibits that the plaintiffs had failed to establish any right, title or interest in the land under the occupation of the defendants. 15. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the learned trial court had based its findings on Exhibit-H, which according to the appellant was a photocopy and therefore inadmissible in evidence. However, it is quite clear from the judgment of the learned trial court at paragraph 22 that the said Exhibit-H was proved by DW-4, who was an official witness and who had verified its contents to be similar with the official records, which proved that the Page No.# 16/17 predecessors of the plaintiff sold the Schedule-B land in favor of defendant No. 1, and therefore, the plaintiffs cannot claim any right, title or interest over the entire Schedule-B land. Therefore, there is no force in the submission of learned counsel for the appellant inasmuch as the said photocopy has been compared with the original by the official witness from official records. 16. The learned first appellate court had also held that it is the settled provision of law by virtue of Section 110 of the Evidence Act that when a person is shown to be in possession of the land, it is the burden of the person who denies the ownership of the said person to prove that he is not the owner, and therefore, it was the burden upon the plaintiff to show that the defendants were not the owners of the suit property under their possession, which the plaintiffs clearly failed to do for the reasons already discussed. 17. Having regard to the aforesaid findings of fact by both the learned courts below, no question of law, much less any substantial question of law, has arisen for admitting the present second appeal. Accordingly, the same stands dismissed. 18. The appeal is disposed of as dismissed. JUDGE Page No.# 17/17 Comparing Assistant