G.C.Gupta, J. - (1.) This Second Appeal is, at the instance of the defendants, directed against a decree of reversal passed by the learned Lower Appellate Court. Briefly stated the case of the plaintiffs is that by a deed of conveyance dated 19-4-1938 one Golam Sopan Dorji purchased the disputed land from one Ashiruddin Sk. Upon the death of the said Golam Sopan Dorji the plaintiffs and the proforma defendants No. 5 to 7 inherited the said land and have been continuing in possession thereof. It is alleged that due to a mistake the disputed land was recorded in the name of one Osman Dorji instead of the said Golam Sopan Dorji in the R.S. Record of right. It is further alleged that the said R.S. Record is baseless; Osman Dorji did never have any right title interest or possession in respect of the disputed land. Further case of the plaintiff is that taking advantage of the aforesaid incorrect recording the defendants No. 1, 2 and 3 on 8-4-1977 threatened to dispossess the plaintiffs. The defendants No. 1 and 2 are the sons of the said Osman Darji since deceased and the defendant No. 3 is a transferee of the disputed piece of land from the defendants No. 1 and 2. The plaintiffs in the circumstances, claimed declaration of title and permanent injunction restraining the defendants from disturbing the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs. The defendants have denied all material allegations contained in the plaint.
(2.) The trial Court held that the plaintiffs are not in possessing; the entry in the R.S. Record of right is not incorrect and the suit is barred by limitation. Inter alia on the basis of the aforesaid the trial Court dismissed the suit. The trial Court assigned the following reason :- (i) The certified copy of the R.S. Khatian No. 230 (Ext. 'C') proves that during R.S. operation Osman Darji was in possession of the suit land. (ii) No cogent evidence on the part of the plaintiffs was adduced to rebut the presumption about the correctness of the R.S. Record. (iii) Akbar Ali Darji the plaintiffs witness No. 2 deposed that both plaintiff No. 1 and the defendant No. 3 are in possession of the suit land. (iv) It was admitted by the proforma defendant No. 6 who appeared as the P.W.1 that he purchased 5 cents of land which at that time formed part of the disputed land from Osman Darji on 1-11-1968. The proforma defendant No. 6, Abdul Latif who deposed as the P.W.1 is the brother of the plaintiff No. 1. (v) The fact that Abdul Latif purchased the said 5 cents of land from Osman Dorji and subsequently sold the same to Asura Bibi, sister of the defendant No. 3, militates against the contention of the plaintiffs both as regards title and possession. For in that case there could be no question of the aforesaid 5 cents of land being purchased by Latif from Osman Dorji. (vi) R.S. Record shows that Osman Darji was in possession since 1945. Osman Dorji sold the said 5 cents of land to Abdul Latif in the year 1968. Thus from the year 1945 to 1968 his possession in established. This goes to show that he was in possession for more than 12 years. (vii) The D.W. 2 has deposed that the defendants No. 3 and 4 are in possession of the suit land. (viii) It is true that by Ext. 'A' Golam Sopan Darji acquired title to suit land but the same was extinguished by adverse possession of the suit land by Osman Dorji and the plaintiffs did not acquire any title to the suit land on the death of their predecessor Golam Sopan Dorji.
(3.) The Lower Appellate Court held that the defendants had failed to prove adverse possession and therefore the irresistable conclusion was that the plaintiffs have their subsisting right title and interest in the land. In taking the aforesaid view, the Lower Appellate Court held that (a) R.S. Record of right should not be taken as a sacrosanct document; and (b) that there is no scope to come to the conclusion that Osma Dorji acquired title to the land in suit by continuous possession for more than 12 years.;