Law: Bengal Tenancy Act (VIII of 1885)

Section: 103-B(5)

Law: Evidence Act (I of 1872)

Section: 13

(a) Bengal Tenancy Act (VIII of 1885), S. 103-B(5) read with Evidence Act (I of 1872), S. 102-Burden of proof-Correct ness of C. S. Record-To be rebutted by person alleging against it. Kumbhan Lakshmanna and others v. Tangirala Ven-Kateswarl 2 D L R 83 and Aminuddin Biswas v. Miajan Biswas and others P L D 1960 Dacca 429 ref. (b) Evidence Act (I of 1872), S. 13-Document, though not inter partes, as an instance of assertion of a right-Admissible under S. 13-Recitals in such document, however, not binding on person not a party to it - Yendee failing to substantiate by evidence vendor's right, title or possession in suit land-No right or title, held, passed to vendee under deed of transfer, in circumstances of case. It is true that a document is admissible under section 13 of the Evidence Act as an instance of assertion of a right even though it is not inter partes but the recitals in it are not binding on the person who was not a party to it. Although in the absence of independent evidence weight is given to the recitals in old documents though not inter partes, but recitals in documents of recent origin per se cannot be accept ed as adequate evidence to prove the facts recited. In this case as the plaintiffs have failed to substantiate by evidence aliunde that their vendors had any right, title or possession in the suit land, it must be held that no right or title in the suit land passed to them under the said deeds of transfer. Harendra Nath Mukherji and others v. Hari Pada Mukherji and others A I R 1939 Cal. 387 and Banga Chandra Dhur Biswas and another v. Jagat Kishore Acharjya Chowdhuri and others A I R 1916 P C 110 ref.   JUDGMENT This appeal is by defendant No. 3 in .a suit brought by the plaintiffs for a declaration of title and confirmation of possession. It is directed against the judgment and decree passed in favour of the plaintiffs by Mr. S. R. Karmakar, Subordinate Judge, Additional Court, Khulna setting aside those of Mr. A. H. Sirdar, Munsif, Additional Court, Bagerhat dismissing the suit. The case for the plaintiffs is that 9.43 acres of land in Khatian No. 287 of Mouza Khada, P. S. Saronkhola originally belonged to Ukiluddin Howlader,…