Sahidullah Munshi, J. - (1.) This second appeal at the instance of the plaintiff is against the judgment and decree dated 16.05.1991 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 4th Court, Midnapore in Title Appeal No. 180 of 1990 affirming those dated 9th April, 1990 passed by the learned Munsif, 3rd Court, Midnapore in Title Suit No. 99 of 1981. Plaintiff/appellants filed a suit for declaration and injunction. According to the plaint case suit plot nos. 597 and 600 originally belonged to Srimanta, Purnananda and Umesh, the predecessor-in-interest of the defendants. One Tara Chand Gantait was predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff who intended to purchase some property adjacent to plot nos. 622 and 601 from Srimanta, Purnananda and Umesh. Srimanta, Purnananda and Umesh transferred 2 decimals of land out of 3 decimal in plot no. 597 on the Eastern side and 4 decimal of land out of 8 decimal in plot no. 600 on the Southern side. The consideration money was Rs.40/-. According to the plaintiffs such transfer was effected on 15th February, 1927 and since then Tara Chand, plaintiffs' predecessor is in possession which has been described in the sketch map of the plaint being the portion as makred as A, B, C, D and in respect of plot no. 597 being marked as E, F, G, H in plot no. 600. Plaint case further disclosed that there is a public road covering 1 decimal in plot no. 597, plot no. 601 and 622 which originally belonged to Tara Chand and by natural devaluation it devolved upon the plaintiffs. Both these two plots are bastu land. In the R.S. Record-of-Rights these two plots were recorded in the name of plaintiff. On the adjacent west of plot no. 622 there is a portion of plot no. 597 which is described in the sketch map as A, B, C, D. The suit plot no. 600 is adjacent to 622 and 601 as shown in the sketch map under E, F, G, H. Tara Chand possesses that portion taking plot no. 601 and 622 together with the suit plot since 15th February, 1927 in presence of the predecessor-in-interest of the defendants. According to the plaintiffs they have acquired right, title and interest in respect of the suit property by way of adverse possession. According to them after 15th February, 1927 the predecessor-in-interest of the defendants and the present defendant had no right, title, interest and possession over the disputed 'Ka' scheduled property.
(2.) Defendant contested the suit by filling written statement denying the plaint case. It was denied that the suit property originally belonged to Srimanta, Purnananda and Umesh or that Umesh was predecessor-in-interest of the defendants. According to them Purna Chandra Maity was the grandfather of defendant nos. 1 and 2. One Srimanta Lal Maity was the grandfather of Defendant nos. 3 to 6 and the grandfather of the husband of defendant no.7. According to them there was none known as Srimanta. Plot no. 597 belonged to Umesh and Haraprasad Maity in 8 annas share and Srimanta Lal and Purna Chandra Maity in 8 annas share. Plot no. 600 belonged to Srimanta and Purnananda in equal share. According to the defendant Umesh had no interest in plot no.600. They also denied that Tara Chand was the predecessor in interest of the plaintiffs. Keshab was the father of the plaintiffs. Tara Chand was the father of Keshab. Tara Chand had four sons Ghandhari, Bikram, Keshab and Jagat. They are all dead. Ghandhari had four sons Iswar, Khagen, Gour and Niranjan. Iswar is dead. His sons are Palash and Tapan. Bikram and Jagat had no wife or issue. Tara Chand never intended to purchase the adjacent land of plot nos. 622 and 601. In effect there was no plot no. 622 in the C.S. Record-of-Rights and plot no. 601 was never a Bastu land. Plot no. 601 belonged to Thakurmoni Dasi and that was a 'kala' land. Tara Chand used to reside in Mouza Srirampur. The defendants have denied the story of oral sale in favour of Tara Chand, they also denied that there is a public road through plot no. 597. According to the defendants neither Tara Chand nor plaintiffs ever possessed the disputed property and therefore, the story of adverse possession is false.
(3.) The trial Court framed as many as five issues of which first two issues were on the question of maintainability and valuation of the suit which has been decided by the trial Court in favour of the plaintiffs. Issue nos. 3 and 4, are the material issues in the suit whether the plaintiffs had any right, title, interest and possession over the suit property or whether they were entitled to decree as prayed for. The trial Court came to a conclusion that the plaintiffs failed to prove their possession over the suit land and therefore, those two issues have been answered in the negative and against the plaintiffs. The last issue is on the question whether the plaintiff was entitled to any other relief or reliefs. Here the Court also answered against the plaintiff. It is important to point out that although, the plaintiffs claimed their title over the suit property by way of adverse possession but no issue has been framed on the same. It is also important to point out that although, such a plea of adverse possession was advanced through the plaint case but there was no issue thereon. Appellant pleads fault on the part of the trial Court to frame any issue on adverse possession. However, if the plaintiff claims title adverse to the defendant's right over the suit plot it is the onus of the plaintiff to prove his case. In order to establish possession over the suit plot the plaintiffs relied on the fact that there had been an oral sale in their favour in 1927 but such oral sale could neither be proved by either any document or by any oral evidence. On the contrary record reveals that learned advocate appearing for the plaintiffs submitted that he was not pressing the claim of the plaintiff as regards oral sale. The learned advocate for the plaintiff also conceded to the argument of the learned advocate for the defendants that Exbt.1 and Exbt.2 being the reports of the Junior Land Reforms Officer could not be proved for lack of examination of the author of the said reports. Whole case of the plaintiffs that they used to possess the property for more than 60 years is based on their averments that there had been oral sale for Rs.40/- in favour of Tara Chand from the predecessor in interest of the defendants could not be proved by any means. Therefore, the story of possession and possession for a longer period than 12 years maturing to adverse possession could not be proved. In such a situation the learned Court below rightly held that the plaintiffs could not prove their case to get a decree as prayed for. The trial Court held that the documentary evidence of possession namely the Record-of-Rights and rent receipts are all in favour of the defendants. The only document which was placed by the plaintiffs for consideration in support of their possession is a report of Junior Land Reforms Officer which shows that the maker of the said document was not examined as a result whereof the Court could not rely on the said document as it has got no evidentiary value. It was further held by the learned trial Court that when documentary evidence failed the plaintiff sought to rely on the oral evidence and even it was noticed that the oral evidence contradicts the documentary evidence and if such be the case definitely the documentary evidence will prevail over the oral evidence and which exactly has been done by the learned trial Court. The plaintiff relied on the learned Advocate's Commission report where plot no. 600 reflected existence of Doba but in the R.S. ROR plot no. 600 has been shown to be a paddy land and plot no. 597 is a danga land. Admittedly, no objection was filed against such recording, although, it is claimed by the plaintiff that the R.S. ROR was wrongly prepared. But there is also no prayer in the plaint that such Record-of-Rights are erroneous. In absence of such prayer, in my view, the learned Court below has rightly refused to grant a decree for declaration in respect of the suit land and also the grant of permanent injunction against the defendant. Record-of-Rights, no doubt neither creates nor extinguishes title but has got a presumptive value. Such presumption is a rebuttable presumption. Unless cogent evidence is adduced that such recording was erroneous and more so when no such prayer is made in the plaint can Court pass a decree for declaration without declaring that the Record-of-Rights so prepared were erroneous. Therefore, it does not appear to this Court that the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court can at all be interfered with. In appeal against the said judgment and decree the learned Appellate Court below has found no wrong which appears to be justifiably correct and has not interfered with the said judgment of the trial Court. It was argued before the Appellate Court that the trial Court's judgment and decree was liable to be set aside in view of the fact that no issue of adverse possession was framed, although, the plaintiff pleaded the same. The Appellate Court below held that non-framing of issue is not fatal when the Court has substantially justified non-grant of relief of adverse possession in the judgment of the trial Court and therefore, affirmed the same. In second appeal, although, no substantial question of law was framed the only question was taken into consideration in this appeal whether the Courts below committed any illegality in not granting declaration in favour of the plaintiffs over the suit land when according to Local Investigation Commissioner's report reflects possession of plaintiffs in respect of a Doba on a part of the suit plot and whether the trial Court was justified in refusing grant of permanent injunction.;