The record is taken up for passing the necessary order. This is a suit for declaration that the plaintiffs are entitled to 46 decimal of lands scheduled to the plaint. Perused the plaint, deposition given by P.W: 01, the documentary pieces of evidence submitted herewith, and the suit record.
02. Upon such perusal and consideration
of the adduced shreds of evidence, it appears that CS khatian No. 85 was
recorded in the name of one Chando Mondal. But he become failed to pay taxes
and thus, the Zaminders conveyed the suit lands to one Hobir Mondol, who
eventually transferred the suit lands to Kofil and Lahar Mandol. SA recorded
was prepared and published in the name these two persons. Then, they
transferred the suit lands to the plaintiff via deed no. 393/58. The plaintiff
claims that he mutated his name against the suit lands thereafter in 1960. The plaintiffs through
the shred of adduced evidence asserted that 12 decimal lands comprised in RS
plot No. 1818 of the RS Khatian No. 95 was mistakenly recorded and prepared in
the name of the defendants’ predecessors.
03. The plaintiffs’
claim also envisages that 12 decimal of the landed property scheduled to the
plaint is still in plaintiffs’ exclusive possession and control. The plaintiff
claims that in a way and with the connivance of any interested group, the
property described in the plaint got recorded wrongly in the RS record as such,
which is completely misleading, deceptive, not real as well as not indicative
of the de facto situation. It also
transpires in evidence [PW-01] asserted that the plaintiffs have been in
possession of the suit lands since the demise of their predecessors, and the
defendant has no actual possession and ownership of the suit lands.
04. The materials evidence available on record demonstrates that since the defendants neither submitted a written statement nor contested the suit in any other way, no evidence is led by the defendant concerning the suit land. As such, nothing is proved to the contrary. Furthermore, to demystify, although the latest khatian (RS) favors the defendant, Khatian itself is not a document of title. It is just evidence of possession, which neither creates nor destroys the title. It is merely a record of physical possession at the time when it is prepared [vide 59 DLR 207]. On this premise, the testimony of the PW-01 702 underscores that the plaintiffs have been in possession of the suit land since the erroneous preparation of the RS record of rights. Consequently, it transpires that the presumptive value of the defendant’s latest record of rights is rebutted by the plaintiff's side with the best possible evidence. The relevant law is that having successfully displaced the presumption of correctness of the RS khatian prepared in the name of the defendant by proving their title and possession in the suit land, the plaintiffs are entitled to the relief prayed for. Hence, with being the facts and laws as discussed hereinbefore, it appears to the court that if these pieces of evidence are considered together, the plaintiff’s side comes up before the court with more convincing and persuasive evidentiary materials on the point that whether the plaintiffs are in possession of the suit land to date.
05. In short, title is a
legal term that refers to interest and ownership of something. In a jurisprudential
sense, title to property thus refers to ownership of the property, whereas
ownership to lands refers to an aggregate of all the rights a person has with
those lands that he owns. Particularly, the concept of ownership flows from
that of possession [vide A Textbook
of Jurisprudence, G. W. Paton, (1973) OUP, p. 539, 546]. Accordingly, it can be
said that when you have ownership, then you have only ownership; and when you
have title, then you have ownership as well as title. Therefore, it transpires
that because the plaintiff’s possession and interests over the suit lands have
been proved with credible and weighty evidence, he has standings on his own
strength to prove his claims. Being the case as such, the balance of
preponderance hereby redirects against the government defendant. Hence, it
cogently appears that there appears to be proved by unimpeachable evidence as
well as sufficient implications that the plaintiffs have title, ownership, and
possession to the suit lands; and no clouds are seen in the sky of their title
thereto. And thus, the suit deserves to be decreed against the defendant. As
such, it is decided that the plaintiffs may get the equitable relief as prayed
for under section 42 of the Specific Relief Act, 1887.
Court fee paid is sufficient.
Hence,
it is ordered
that the suit is decreed
ex parte against the defendant without costs. It is hereby declared that
the plaintiff is entitled to 12 decimal of the landed property scheduled No. Ga
to the plaint.