RSA 175/2011 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY The judgment and order dated 27.8.2010 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Dhubri in Title Appeal No. 25/2009 constitutes the subject matter of challenge in the instant appeal. Thereby the suit of the respondents herein has been decreed. I have heard Mr AK Purkayastha, learned counsel for the appellants. For the order proposed to be passed it is considered inessential to issu e formal notice. The respondents had instituted Title Suit No. 112/2007(originally regist ered as Title Suit No. 512/2003) in the Court of the learned Munsiff, Bilasipara , Dhubri praying for a decree for declaration of their right, title and interes t in and recovery of possession of the suit land described in the schedule to th e plaint, their pleaded case being that their predecessors-in-interest, namely, Farazulla, Fazaruddin, Khaliluddin and Salimuddin were the absolute owners in p ossession thereof and that their names had been duly recorded in respect of the same during the settlement operation in the year 1962. The respondents/ plaintif fs further stated that the aforenamed owners also allowed one Esadu Sk. to posse ss a portion of the land following which his name was also recorded in respect t hereof in the Records-of-Right. On the death of Esadu Sk., however, the portion of the land in his possession reverted to the respondents/ plaintiffs who after the death of their predecessors-in-interest had become the absolute and original owner of the suit land. They alleged that the appellants/ defendants on 11.7.20 03 dispossessed them therefrom and constructed houses thereon and though an FIR was lodged against them nothing fruitful followed. In this background the suit w as filed. The appellants/ defendants in their joint written statement while questi oning the maintainability of the suit on the ground of non-joinder of necessary parties, denied the right, title and interest of the respondents/ plaintiffs. Th ey claimed to be the legal heirs of the co-khatiandar Salimuddin and asserted th eir possession of the suit land since before 60/70 years from the institution of the suit. The allegation of dispossession and trespass was denied by them. Issues were framed on the pleadings and both sides adduced evidence, whe reafter, the learned Trial Court dismissed the suit. In appeal this decision has been reversed. Mr Purkayastha for the appellants while admitting the right, title and i nterest in the suit land in the above named predecessors-in-interest of the resp ondents/ plaintiffs and their exclusive succession thereto by inheritance, has a rgued that as the allegation of trespass and dispossession by the appellants/ de fendants has remained unproved, the learned Lower Appellate Court had erred in l aw in decreeing the suit. According to the learned counsel, even assuming that o n the basis of the evidence on record, both oral and documentary the right, titl e and interest of the respondents/ plaintiffs in the suit land by inheritance st ood proved to the exclusion of the appellants/ defendants, the same per se would not entitle them (respondents/ plaintiffs) to a decree for possession as well, they having failed to prove their occupation of the suit land from before the in stitution of the suit as well as the imputation of their dispossession therefrom . To reinforce his pleas Mr Purkayastha has extensively relied on the discussion recorded in the judgment and order of the learned Trial Court. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the appellants and on a considerati on of the materials on record, this Court does not feel persuaded to uphold the contentions raised on behalf of the appellants. It having been admitted in cours e of the arguments that the respondents/ plaintiffs only had succeeded to the su it land from the recorded owners in possession thereof, a fact amply established by the revenue records proved in the suit, the plea against their entitlement t o recover possession thereof does not appeal to this Court. This is more so in a bsence of any assertion of adverse possession of the suit land by the appellants / defendants beyond the period prescribed by law so as to divest the respondents / plaintiffs of their right, title and interest therein. The learned Lower Appel late Court on a consideration, amongst others, of the proved revenue records has decreed the suit of the respondents/ plaintiffs holding them to be the absolute owner of the suit land. That the appellants/ defendants though had claimed succ ession to the suit land through Salimuddin had failed to adduce any evidence to that effect was also noticed by it. It is trite that entries in the revenue reco rds are not absolute proof of title. But in the face of the admitted succession of the respondents/ plaintiffs only to the suit land as the heirs of the origina l pattadars, the eventual conclusion in their favour as recorded in the impugned judgment and order does not merit interference. The appeal lacks in merit and is dismissed. No costs.