JUDGMENT 1. This is plaintiffs' first appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for brevity 'the C.P.C.') against the judgment and decree dated 27.01.1997 passed in Civil Suit No. 33-A/1981 by the 2nd Additional District Judge to the Court of District Judge, Bilaspur dismissing the plaintiffs' suit. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are as under:- (i) A suit seeking relief of declaration of title and possession of the suit property comprising land bearing Kh.No.492/1 area 0.12 decimals and Kh.No.492/2 area. 0.10 decimals and house constructed thereupon was filed by Davidmati Das arid Ku. Elizabeth, i.e., son and daughter of late Matidas. (ii) During the pendency of the suit, pursuant to execution of sale deeds (Ex.P.1 & P.2) in favour of Laxmi Devi, Sadri Prasad Gupta and Rajendra Kumar Gupta by plaintiff No. 1 and late Ku. Elizabeth, their names were added as plaintiffs No.2, 3 and 4 and name of Ku. Elizabeth was deleted due to her death. (iii) According to the plaint averments, Matidas had purchased the suit property from Ludku and his brothers, in the year 1933 and constructed the suit house thereupon and since then he along with Davidmati Das and Ku. Elizabeth was in possession of the suit property till his death, in his own right. Matidas had died on 12.05.1981. After his death, Davidmati Das and Ku. Elizabeth continued in possession of the suit property. (iv) On 17.05.1981, defendants No.5 to 7 forcibly entered into the suit house. The first information report was lodged against the defendants. (v) The suit property stands recorded in the revenue papers in the name of late Matidas. The defendants have no right or title over the suit property. (vi) As per the defendants' case, Ludku, Polo and Samaru orally gifted the suit land to Dheerpal, i.e., father of Timothi and Daniel in the year 1935, who constructed a Kachha house over it. Later on, 20 - 22 years back (from the date of filing of written statement), the defendants have constructed a Pakka house over the suit land, consisting of 9 rooms and one well. They themselves borne the expenses and since then they are in possession of the suit property. (vii) Matidas was living along with his wife and daughter Ku. Elijabeth with his son Davidmati Das at Pali, Tahsil Katghora. Matidas left Pali due to misbehaviour of his son Davidmati Das. They themselves borne the expenses and since then they are in possession of the suit property. (vii) Matidas was living along with his wife and daughter Ku. Elijabeth with his son Davidmati Das at Pali, Tahsil Katghora. Matidas left Pali due to misbehaviour of his son Davidmati Das. He requested defendants to permit him to live in the suit house, which they permitted and due to above permission, Matidas along with his wife and daughter lived in the suit house. Late Elizabeth started living in the house of Sadri Prasad Gupta ( ?kj cSB xbZ Fkh ). Neither Davidmati Das nor late Elizabeth was ever in possession of the suit property. (viii) Wife of Matidas had died in the year 1970. Matidas had also died on 5.12.1981. Davidmati Das did not come for their last rites. However he came on 13.05.1981 to Takhatpur and started negotiations for selling the suit property to Badri Prasad Gupta. (ix) Davidmati Das and late Elizabeth have colluded with plaintiffs No.2, 3 & 4 and sold the suit property to them through registered sale deeds, which are totally illegal and do not confer any title on them. The defendants are owners of the suit property and are also in possession of the same. (x) In criminal case No. 20/1982, Judicial Magistrate Second Class, Bilaspur, vide its judgment dated 27.04.1982 has held, the defendants are living in 4 rooms of the suit house and also using the open land. Therefore, the suit is liable to be dismissed. The defendants are owners of the suit property and are also in possession of the same. (x) In criminal case No. 20/1982, Judicial Magistrate Second Class, Bilaspur, vide its judgment dated 27.04.1982 has held, the defendants are living in 4 rooms of the suit house and also using the open land. Therefore, the suit is liable to be dismissed. (xi) The trial Court framed the following issues : okn iz’u 1- D;k oknHkwfe o edku erhnkl dh Fkh \ 2- D;k oknxzLr tehu [k-ua- 492@1 fMl- rFkk [kljk ua- 492@2 jdck 10 fMlfey rFkk bl ij cus oknhx.k dks muds firk erhnkl ls izkIr gksdj os muds dCts esa pys vk jgs gSa \ 3- D;k 12-5-81 dks erhnkl dks e`R;q ds ckn izfr- }kjk oknxzLr edku esa tcju ?kql vk, \ 4- D;k vLFkkbZ fu”ks/kkKk ds vkns’k ds ckn izfr- x.k laiw.kZ oknxzLr edku ds voS/k :i ls dCtk dj fy, \ 5- D;k okn dk ewY;kadu mfpr :i ls fd;k x;k gS \ 6- vU; lgk;rk ,oa O;; \ vfrfjDr okn iz’u 1- D;k oknhx.k oknxzLr LFkku ds Lokeh gS \ 2- D;k oknhx.k }kjk izLrqr ;g okn iks”k.kh; gS \ 3- D;k okn dk mfpr U;k; ‘kqYd vnk fd;k x;k gS \ 4- D;k okn le;kof/k ds Hkhrj is’k gS \ 5- D;k okn esa okndkj.kksa ds dqla;kstu dk nks”k gS \ (xii) The plaintiffs examined P.W.1 Davidmati Das, P.W.2 Badri Prasad, P.W.3 Shri Kumar Pathak and Chailram P.W.4. On the other hand, the defendants have examined D.W.1 Daniel, D.W.2 Chandra Dayal, D.W.3 Govindram and D.W.4 Sheo Kumar. (xiii) The trial Court held: the suit property is joint family property of late Matidas, Timothi and Daniel; Davidmati Das and Elizabeth were not in possession of the suit property; Matidas died on 13.04.1980 and not on 12.05.1981; defendants were in possession of the entire suit house and plaintiffs were not residing in the suit house prior to filing of the suit and dismissed the plaintiffs' suit. Hence, this appeal. (xiv) During the pendency of the appeal, appellant No.3 - Badri Prasad Gupta and defendant No. 1 - Chandra Dayal and defendant No.2 Deen Dayal have died and their legal representatives were brought on record. 3. Hence, this appeal. (xiv) During the pendency of the appeal, appellant No.3 - Badri Prasad Gupta and defendant No. 1 - Chandra Dayal and defendant No.2 Deen Dayal have died and their legal representatives were brought on record. 3. Shri Rajeev Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing for the appellants would submit: the defendants have admitted the date of death of Matidas in para - 2 of their written statement as 12.05.1981; the judgment of Civil Court dated 18.09.1941 (Ex.P.10) and appellate Court's judgment dated 13.41942 (Ex.P.11) go to show, Matidas alone was owner and in possession of the suit property, even prior to 1941; the suit property also stands recorded in the revenue papers in the name of Matidas; as per defendants' own evidence, Matidas and his wife lived in the suit house till their death and late Elizabeth also lived in the suit house. However, the trial Court ignoring the documentary evidence as well as oral evidence led by the plaintiffs, gave much weightage to the oral evidence led by the defendants which is in variance with the averments made in the written statement. According to Mr. Shrivastava, the trial Court has committed grave error in dismissing the plaintiffs' suit. 4. Per contra, Shri K.A. Ansari, learned Senior Counsel with Shri Devesh Kela for respondents No.1(A) & (B), 2 (A) to (C) and 3 to 11, vehemently argued: the plaintiffs failed to prove their forcible dispossession by the defendants; as per death certificate Ex.D.11, date of death of Mati Das is 13th April, 1980; as per sale deed Ex.P.2 executed on 16.01.1982 the possession was not handed over to original plaintiffs No.2, 3 & 4 by Davidmati Das and late Ku. Elizabeth, and therefore, the trial Court, on proper appreciation of the evidence and material available on record, has rightly dismissed the plaintiffs' suit, which does not call for any interference. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of trial Court including judgment and decree impugned. 6. The following questions fall for consideration of this Court : (i) whether late Matidas was owner of the suit property or late Matidas along with his brothers - Timoti and Daniel were co-owners of the suit property? (ii) whether the sale deeds executed by Davidmati Das and late Elizabeth in favour of plaintiffs No.2, 3 & 4 are illegal and do not confer any title on them? (ii) whether the sale deeds executed by Davidmati Das and late Elizabeth in favour of plaintiffs No.2, 3 & 4 are illegal and do not confer any title on them? (iii) whether Matidas was in exclusive settled possession of the suit property in his life time, and thereafter his son and daughter continued in possession of the suit property? and (iv) whether the defendants have dispossessed appellant -Davidmati das and his sister late Ku. Elizabeth sometimes in the month of May, 1981? (v) whether the trial Court has fallen in error in dismissing the plaintiffs' suit? 7. So far as defendants are concerned, they did not produce any document showing their exclusive ownership and possession. They also did not produce any document showing their joint ownership and/or possession with Matidas nor they could have produced any document to prove the fact that in fact they are the persons who had constructed the suit house over the suit land. In such circumstances, the trial Court has certainly fallen in error in holding late Matidas, Timothi and Daniel as joint owners/ possessor of the suit property. 8. A bare perusal of judgment of Second Additional District Judge, Bilaspur, dated 13.04.1942 (Ex.P.11) would reveal, although late Matidas was in possession of the land and also constructed a house thereupon but he failed to prove the purchase of the land from Ludku, Polo and Samaru by way of oral sale. Therefore, although Matidas was possessor of the suit property but his possession was without title. Thus, neither Matidas nor his legal representatives can be termed as owners of the suit property entitling them to transfer ownership in favour of plaintiffs No.2, 3 & 4 and certainly the sale deeds (Ex.P.1 & P.2) executed by Davidmati Das and Ku. Elizabeth do not confer any title in favour of plaintiffs No.2, 3 & 4. Nevertheless when the facts disclose no title in either party, possession alone decides. In the absence of proof of better title, prior peaceful settled possession is itself evidence of title. 9. Elizabeth do not confer any title in favour of plaintiffs No.2, 3 & 4. Nevertheless when the facts disclose no title in either party, possession alone decides. In the absence of proof of better title, prior peaceful settled possession is itself evidence of title. 9. So far as settled possession of late Matidas is concerned, besides judgment of Second Additional District Judge (Ex.P.11), is also evident from the revenue papers and even admissions of the defendants in the written statement wherein they have stated, they permitted Matidas along with his wife and daughter to live in the suit house, A conjoint reading of judgment of Second Additional District Judge dated 13.04.1942 (Ex.P.11) along with Adhikari Abhilekh (Ex. P. 3) and oral evidence, it is crystal clear that Matidas was in exclusive settled possession of the suit property since 1933-34.. 10. The Supreme Court in the case of Rame Gowda Vs. M. Varadappa Naidu (Dead) By LRs and another (2004) 1 SCC 769, has held: A person in possession of land in assumed character of owner and exercising peaceably the ordinary rights of ownership has a perfectly good title against all the world but the rightful owner. When the facts disclose no title in either party, possession alone decides. "Possessio contra omnes valet praeter eur cui ius sit possessionis (he that hath possession hath right against all but him that hath the very right)". In the absence of proof of better title, possession or prior peaceful settled possession is itself evidence of title. Law presumes the possession to go with the title unless rebutted. When the defendant fails in proving his title to the suit land the plaintiff can succeed in securing a decree for possession on the basis of his prior possession against the defendant who has dispossessed him. Such a suit will be founded on the averment of previous possession of the plaintiff and dispossession by the defendant. 11. Admittedly, Matidas was living in the suit house till his death. Ku. Elizabeth also used to reside in the suit house and before joining his employment, Davidmati Das was also living in the same house. The trial Court, in holding Davidmati Das not in possession of the suit property, was persuaded by the fact that Davidmati Das was even not aware about the date of death of Matidas. Ku. Elizabeth also used to reside in the suit house and before joining his employment, Davidmati Das was also living in the same house. The trial Court, in holding Davidmati Das not in possession of the suit property, was persuaded by the fact that Davidmati Das was even not aware about the date of death of Matidas. According to the trial Court, Matidas had died on 13.04.1980, i.e., the date which is mentioned in death certificate (Ex.D.11). 12. As per plaintiffs' case, Matidas had died on 12.05.1981. This fact has been admitted by the defendants in para - 2 of their written statement. A bare reading of para - 6 of the written statement would reveal, in substance, even as per defendants, the date of death of Matidas was 12.05.1981. A bare perusal of death certificate (Ex.D.11) would reveal, the death was registered before the authorities after a period of about 9 years. As per section 13(3) of Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969, any birth or death, which has not been registered within one year of its occurrence, shall be registered only on an order made by a Magistrate First Class or a Presidency Magistrate after verifying the correctness of birth and death on payment of the prescribed fee. 13. In the instant case, the defendants have not filed any order of Magistrate based on which the entry has been made with regard to death of Matidas. It is an accepted principle that an entry in the register of births is not conclusive evidence of the disputed date of birth. The policy of the law embodied in Section 13 (3), is to avoid manipulation in the entries relating to the date of births and deaths. Such entry shall be made immediately after the occurrence. Precaution should be taken while making delayed entries. The entry made by the Registrar, pursuant to an order of the Magistrate, cannot carry higher probative value and its proof must necessarily depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. 14. Such entry shall be made immediately after the occurrence. Precaution should be taken while making delayed entries. The entry made by the Registrar, pursuant to an order of the Magistrate, cannot carry higher probative value and its proof must necessarily depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. 14. Considering the admission of the defendants in the written statement and the fact that the entry relating to death of Matidas has been made after a period of about 9 years, in my considered opinion, the trial Court went wrong in holding the date of death of Matidas as 13.04.1980 and in not accepting the date of death of Matidas as 12.05.1981 and thereby discarding the evidence adduced by the plaintiffs. 15. A close scrutiny of the plaint averments and the evidence of plaintiffs' witnesses go to show, Matidas was all along in settled possession of the suit property till his death, Davidmati Das and late Ku. Elizabeth also lived in the suit house and defendants were never in possession of the suit property before the death of Matidas. 16. As per the case of the defendants, suit property was given in oral gift to Dheerpal, i.e. father of defendants by Ludku, Polo and Samaru because he was working as Blacksmith and Carpenter in their house whereas D.W.1 Daniel has stated in para - 10 of his statement, his father Dheerpal was Kotwar of village Bhathri and was not working as Carpenter and Blacksmith. Further, in para -2 of his statement, D.W.1 Daniel, in substance, has stated, Ludku had gifted 22 decimals of land to Matidas, him and Timothi and they constructed a Kachha house thereupon whereas in the written statement, they say the land was gifted by Ludku, Polo and Samaru to Dheerpal, who constructed a house thereupon. Thus, the evidence led by the defendants is in variance with the averments made in the written statement. 17. The Supreme Court, in the case of M Chinnasamy Vs. K.C. Palanisamy and other (2004) 6 SCC 341, has held in para - 42 of its judgment that: "It is now well-settled principle of law that evidence adduced beyond the pleadings would not be admissible nor can any evidence be permitted to be adduced which is at variance with the pleadings. K.C. Palanisamy and other (2004) 6 SCC 341, has held in para - 42 of its judgment that: "It is now well-settled principle of law that evidence adduced beyond the pleadings would not be admissible nor can any evidence be permitted to be adduced which is at variance with the pleadings. The court at a later stage of the trial as also the appellate court having regard to the rule of pleadings would be entitled to reject the evidence wherefor there does not exist any pleading." The Supreme Court, in the case of Vinod Kumar Arora Vs. Smt. Surjit Kaur AIR 1987 SC 2179, has held: "The pleadings of the parties form the foundation of their case and it is not open to them to give up the case set out in the pleadings." In the case of Prataprai N. Kothari Vs. John Braganza (1999) 4 SCC 403, the Apex Court has further held: "It is settled law that in the absence of any plea, no evidence is admissible." The Apex Court, in the case of Bondar Singh and others Vs. Nihal Singh and other (2003) 4 SCC 161, has held that "it is a settled law that in the absence of a plea no amount of evidence led in relation thereto can be looked into." 18. Therefore, the trial Court has also fallen in error in discarding the plaintiffs' evidence, which is in consonance with the plaint averments, also supported by the documentary evidence and in believing the defendants' oral evidence, which runs counter to the averments made by them in the written statement. 19. In view of above, in my considered opinion, Davidmati Das, being legal representative of Matidas was in settled possession of the suit property and was dispossessed by the defendants sometimes in the month of May, 1981 when Matidas had died in the suit house and although he was without any title, is entitled for decree of possession on the basis of his prior peaceful settled possession against the defendants, who failed to prove their title to the suit land and/or their possession/joint possession. 20. However, since the sale deeds (Ex.P.1 & P.2) do not confer any title upon the appellants No.2, 3 & 4 and were also not in possession of the suit property at any point of time, they are not entitled for any decree of possession along with appellant - Davidmati Das. 20. However, since the sale deeds (Ex.P.1 & P.2) do not confer any title upon the appellants No.2, 3 & 4 and were also not in possession of the suit property at any point of time, they are not entitled for any decree of possession along with appellant - Davidmati Das. 21. Under Article 64 of the Limitation Act, the suit based on prior possession can be filed within a period of 12 years from the date of dispossession. As held earlier, the appellant has been dispossessed by the defendants sometimes in the month of May, 1981, i.e., at the time of death of Matidas, and therefore, appellant No. 1 though not entitled for declaration of his title over the suit property, is certainly entitled for decree of possession against the defendants, based on his prior peaceful settled possession. 22. For the reasons mentioned herein above, the appeal is allowed in part. Judgment and decree of the trial Court is set aside. The suit is decreed in part. The decree of possession is granted in favour of appellant No.1. The defendants shall hand over the vacant possession of the suit property to appellant No.1 within a period of two months. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties shall bear their own costs. 23. A decree be drawn accordingly. Appeal Partly Allowed.