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: 01-02, 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 the recorded tenants of the
SA khatian Nos. 134, 140, 181, 201, and 214 transferred 0.17 acres of lands to
the plaintiff institution via deed No. 8713 dated 21.04.1966; and possession
was delivered by them to the plaintiff as well. The plaintiffs’ claim also envisages that
the landed property of 46 scheduled to the plaint is still in plaintiffs’
exclusive possession and control. The plaintiffs through the shred of adduced
evidence asserted that the suit property comprised in the RS record of rights
in question was mistakenly recorded and prepared in the name of defendant
No. 01, the government and defendant No. 53-69. 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, 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 plaintiff has been in possession of the
suit lands since 1966, and the defendant has no actual possession and ownership
to the suit lands.
03. The PW-02 is also found to be in tune with the plaintiffs’ propositions relating to the mode, nature, and way of possession of the suit property. The materials evidence available on record demonstrates that there is a semi-pakka building on the suit lands where the plaintiff institution continues to educate students. The plaintiff-side produced the documentary evidence mentioned above, including khatians, deeds, attendance of students and teachers as well as a salary register book. The PW-02 also appears to be convincing for they are shown to be enabled to identify the suit land with correct directions. 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.
04. Furthermore, to demystify, although the latest khatian (RS) favors the defendant, Khatian itself is not a document of title. It is just an evidence of possession, which neither creates nor destroys 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 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 the plaintiffs having successful to displace 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, they 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 an 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 has 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 defendants. As such, it is decided that the
plaintiff may get the equitable relief as prayed for under section 42 of the
Specific Relief Act, 1887.
The court fee paid is sufficient.
Hence,
it is ordered
that the suit is decreed
ex parte against the defendants without costs. It is hereby declared that
the plaintiff is entitled to 0.17 acres of the landed property scheduled to the
plaint.