JUDGMENT S.C. Das, J.:-- . This second appeal under Section 100 of CPC is directed against the judgment and decree dated 18.09.2004 passed by learned Addl. District Judge, North Tripura, Kailashahar in Title Appeal No. 01 of 2004, whereunder, the learned Addl. District Judge upheld the judgment and decree of dismissal dated 01.12.2003 passed by learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Kailashahar, North Tripura in Title Suit No. 06 of 1997. 2. Heard learned counsel, Mr. D.K. Biswas for the appellant and learned counsel, Mrs. P. Dhar for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. No representation on behalf of the other respondents. 3. By order dated 18.01.2005 the second appeal has been admitted for hearing on the following substantial questions of law: (i) Whether section 43(3) of the TLR & LR Act can be treated to be a better evidence than the title deeds and whether entry in the Record of Right finally published can be axiomatically the final proof of title and is not liable to be disproved by title deed? (ii) Whether section 43 of the TLR & LR Act has been correctly interpreted by the learned court below in dismissing the suit of the plaintiff? (iii) Whether the section 43 of the TOP Act has been correctly interpreted by the trial court in disposing of the suit? 3.1. In the course of hearing learned counsel, Mr. D.K. Biswas for the appellant has submitted that the substantial question of law formulated on 18.01.2005, in true sense, cannot be termed as a substantial question of law for hearing the present second appeal and therefore does not like to insist on those substantial questions of law and further prayed for formulating a fresh substantial question of law on the point of perversity of the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and affirmed by the appellate Court. Learned counsel, Mrs. Dhar also has submitted that the substantial question of law formulated on 18.01.2005 cannot be termed as a substantial question of law and on that ground alone the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 3.2. After hearing learned counsel of both side, I consider it appropriate to formulate the following substantial question of law for hearing the appeal, namely-- Whether the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and affirmed by first appellate Court suffer from perversity? 3.3. 3.2. After hearing learned counsel of both side, I consider it appropriate to formulate the following substantial question of law for hearing the appeal, namely-- Whether the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and affirmed by first appellate Court suffer from perversity? 3.3. The appeal is accordingly heard on the above substantial question of law. 4. The appellant, as plaintiff instituted Title Suit No. 06 of 1997 in the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Kailashahar, North Tripura, seeking declaration of right, title and interest and confirmation of possession in the suit land described in the schedule of the plaint measuring 0.46 acres which appertains to old CS Plot No. 196 corresponding to CS Plot No. 383 of Khatian No. 290 of Mouja-Gournagar and also prayed for perpetual injunction restraining the defendant Nos. 1 to 3 from interfering with peaceful possession of the plaintiff in the suit land. 5. The appellant(hereinafter mentioned as plaintiff), inter alia, contended that land measuring 3.70 acres originally belonged to three brothers, namely Uttam Debnath, Chaitanya Debnath and Netai Debnath and they got the land partitioned in equal share between themselves and each of them got 1.23 acres. Uttam Debnath died leaving behind two sons, namely Binanda Debnath and Surendra Debnath and they equally inherited the property of Uttam Debnath. Chaitanya Debnath died leaving behind two sons, namely Jogendra Debnath and Jatindra Debnath and they inherited the share of Chaitanya Debnath. Nitai Debnath died leaving behind his only son Ananda Debnath and he inherited the share of Nitai Debnath. Initially, a joint khatian was prepared in the name of all the legal heirs of Uttam Debnath, Chaitanya Debnath and Nitai Debnath but subsequently at the time of settlement operation, separate khatian was prepared in the names of the respective owners, i.e. the heirs of Uttam Debnath, Chaitanya Debnath and Nitai Debnath. The share of Chaitanya Debnath was recorded in the name of Jogendra Debnath and Jatindra Debnath in khatian No. 290 of Mouja Gournagar and the khatian was finally published on 12.11.1984 and a total area of 1.19 acres in plot No. 366, 383 and 393 were recorded in the name of two brothers, Jogendra and Jatindra. The plaintiff on 13.01.1997 purchased 0.46 acres of land from Jatindra Debnath by a registered deed of purchase and got possession of the purchased land and accordingly became owner of the suit land. The defendant Nos. The plaintiff on 13.01.1997 purchased 0.46 acres of land from Jatindra Debnath by a registered deed of purchase and got possession of the purchased land and accordingly became owner of the suit land. The defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 3, on 06.04.1997, which corresponds to 23rd of Chaitra, 1403 BS, threatened to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit land and hence the plaintiff instituted the suit seeking decree as stated herein-above. 6. Defendant-respondent Nos. 1 and 2 (hereinafter mentioned as defendants) contested the suit by filing written statement, inter alia, contending that they purchased the suit land by a registered deed on 08.01.1997 from Manindra Ram Malakar(defendant No. 3) and that Manindra Ram Malakar purchased the suit land from Binanda Debnath and Ananda Debnath in the years 1965 and 1966 respectively by dint of two registered deed of purchase and after purchase Manindra Ram Malakar mutated the purchase land in his name and after so purchase by defendant Nos. 1 and 2 they also got the land mutated in their names in khatian No. 490 of Mouja Gournagar. It is the case of the defendants that the suit land described in the schedule of the plaint was actually not owned by the predecessor of the plaintiff and it was extracted from his khatian and subsequently khatian was corrected and so the plaintiff earned no right title and interest by dint of purchase on 13.01.1997. The defendants, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the suit. Defendant Nos. 3 and pro-defendant Nos. 4 to 8 did not contest the suit by filing any written statement. 7. The trial Court considering the pleadings of the parties framed five issues, namely- 1. Whether the suit is maintainable in it present form. 2. Whether there is any cause of action for filing of the suit. 3. Whether the plaintiff has right, title, interest and possession over the suit land by virtue of registered kabla dated 13.01.1997. 4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree as prayed for. 5. To what relief are the parties entitled. 8. In course of trial, the plaintiff examined himself as PW1 and also examined five more witnesses, namely--PW2, Sukhendra Debnath, PW. 3, Mahendra Debnath, PW4 Samar Das, PW5 Minati Bhattacharjee and PW6 Bimalendu Dutta. The plaintiff also proved 17 items of documents, namely- (i) Ext. 1=Finally published Khatian No. 290. (ii) Ext. 2, 3 and 4=Sale deeds bearing Nos. 8. In course of trial, the plaintiff examined himself as PW1 and also examined five more witnesses, namely--PW2, Sukhendra Debnath, PW. 3, Mahendra Debnath, PW4 Samar Das, PW5 Minati Bhattacharjee and PW6 Bimalendu Dutta. The plaintiff also proved 17 items of documents, namely- (i) Ext. 1=Finally published Khatian No. 290. (ii) Ext. 2, 3 and 4=Sale deeds bearing Nos. 4013, 4014 and 4017. (iii) Ext. 5=Khatian No. 490. (iv) Ext. 6=certified copy of khatian No. 261. (v) Ext. 7=Certified copies of khatian No. 185. (vi) Ext. 8=Signature of Mahendra Debnath in deed dated 13.01.97. (vii) Ext. 8/1=Registered purchase deed of plaintiff dated 13.01.97. (viii) Ext. 9= Certified copy of deed No. 1375 dated 29.4.1964. (ix) Ext. 10=Certified copy of registered deed No. 1199 dated 12.4.1965. (x) Ext. 11=Certified copy of deed No. 1249 dated 15.4.1965. (xi) Ext. 12=Certified copy of deed No. 1814 dated 7.5.65. (xii) Ext. 13=Certified copy of deed No. 2615 dated 24.4.65. (xiii) Ext. 14=Certified copy of deed No. 2642 dated 18.5.66. (xiv) Ext. 15=Certified copy of deed No. 3723 dated 25.5.66. (xv) Ext. 16=Certified copy of deed No. 2664 dated 19.4.68. (xvi) Ext. 17=Certified copy of deed No. 29 dated 8.1.97. On behalf of the defendant Nos. 1 and 2, defendant No. 1 examined himself as DW1 and also examined three more witnesses, namely DW2, Manmohan Malakar, DW3, Rakhal Das and DW3, Bhramar As. The defendants also proved the following documents in support of their case- (i) Ext. A=Khatian No. 490. (ii) Ext. B=Khatian No. 490 dated 16.3.89 in the name of Manindra Ram Malakar. (iii) Ext. C=Original 30 years old purchased deed of Manindra Ram Malakar dated 12.4.65. (iv) Ext. D=Certified copy of deed dated 18.5.66. (v) Ext. E=Certified copy of khatian No. 331 in the name of Ananda Debnath. (vi) Ext. F=Deed No. 29 dated 8.1.97. (vii) Ext. F/1=LTI of Manindra Ram Malakar on deed dated 8.1.97. (viii) Ext. F/2=Signature of Manmohan Malakar on Ext. F. 9. The trial Court decided material issue No. 3 against the plaintiff and accordingly dismissed the suit. Aggrieved, the plaintiff filed title appeal No. 01 of 2004 and the appeal has been dismissed by a cryptic judgment passed by the first appellate Court. Hence, this second appeal. 10. At the outset, I am shocked to see the judgment passed by the learned Addl. District Judge in Title Appeal No. 01 of 2004. Aggrieved, the plaintiff filed title appeal No. 01 of 2004 and the appeal has been dismissed by a cryptic judgment passed by the first appellate Court. Hence, this second appeal. 10. At the outset, I am shocked to see the judgment passed by the learned Addl. District Judge in Title Appeal No. 01 of 2004. It is absolutely a cryptic judgment without considering the grounds agitated by the appellant in the Memorandum of Appeal. Learned counsel, Mr. Biswas has submitted that the appellate Court committed gross miscarriage of justice by not considering the pleadings and evidence adduced on behalf of the plaintiff and mechanically disposed the appeal upholding the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. I am in full agreement with the submission of learned counsel, Mr. Biswas that the learned Addl. District Judge has just disposed the appeal without application of mind and without considering the pleadings and evidence on record, which is not at all desirable. 11. It is an admitted position that Uttam Debnath, Chaitanya Debnath and Netai Debnath were three brothers and they were the owners of 3.70 acres of land in equal shares and each of them got 1.23 acres of land in their share mutually partitioned by them and they were independently possessing their respective shares. It is also an admitted position that Uttam Debnath left behind two sons, namely Binanda and Surendra, and they inherited the property of Uttam Debnath in equal share. Chaitanya Debnath left behind two sons namely Jogendra and Jatindra and they inherited the property of Chaitanya in equal share. Netai Debnath left behind his only son Ananda and he inherited the property of Netai in full share. 12. Issue No. 3, framed by the trial Court, is the main issue which has been decided against the plaintiff and accordingly the suit has been dismissed. According to law, burden lies on the plaintiff to prove his case. A civil suit is instituted by a plaintiff presenting a plaint specifically pleading therein his case and the relief he desire. If the defendant, against whom the suit is filed, admits the contention of the plaintiff, a decree on admission may be passed. If the defendants deny the plaintiff’s assertion, issues are framed by the trial Court and the trial Court in the process asks both side to adduce evidence. If the defendant, against whom the suit is filed, admits the contention of the plaintiff, a decree on admission may be passed. If the defendants deny the plaintiff’s assertion, issues are framed by the trial Court and the trial Court in the process asks both side to adduce evidence. Issues are framed on material proposition made by the plaintiff and denied by the defendants. If the plaintiff succeeds to prove his case by adducing evidence, his suit is liable to be decreed and if he fails to prove his case there will be a decree of dismissal. The Court is not required to pass a decree in favour of the defendant unless a counter case is filed. In the present case, after going through the judgment passed by the trial court in respect of issue No. 3, I find that the trial Court was fundamentally wrong in holding that the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 proved the case that they purchased the suit land from their predecessor, the defendant No. 3, by registered deed and they have mutated the land in their names. The trial Court was supposed to consider whether the plaintiff was able to prove his case or not. The trial Court, as it appears, put emphasis on the khatians prepared from time to time in the names of defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and thereby misdirected himself in deciding the real issue in controversy and also wrongly has drawn the provision of Section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act which has got actually no relevance in the facts and circumstances of the suit. In the process, as it appears, the trial Court ignored and/or failed to consider the documentary evidence adduced by the plaintiff in respect of his title. Title to an immovable property is established only by the document of title and not by the record of right, i.e. a khatian prepared by the revenue authority. A khatian is prepared by the revenue authority, in the process following the document of title, and the title cannot be extinguished simply because khatian has not been prepared in the name of the title holder. 13. It is the case of the plaintiff that he purchased 0.46 acres of land from Jatindra Debnath recorded in Khatian No. 290, plot No. 196 corresponding to CS Plot No. 383 of Mouja Gournagar. 13. It is the case of the plaintiff that he purchased 0.46 acres of land from Jatindra Debnath recorded in Khatian No. 290, plot No. 196 corresponding to CS Plot No. 383 of Mouja Gournagar. The registered title deed of the plaintiff is proved as Exbt. 8/1. In support of his title the plaintiff placed the finally published khatian in the name of his predecessor which is marked as Exbt. 1. It shows that it was prepared and finally published on 12.11.1984 and the khatian reflects that it was prepared in the name of Jogendra and Jatindra jointly, the sons of late Chatainya Debnath. The land recorded in plot No. 366, 383 and 393 was 1.19 acres and the plaintiff purchased the land of plot No. 383 which corresponds to old plot No. 196 measuring 0.46 acres. By dint of Exbt. 1 and Exbt. 8/1, the plaintiff abundantly proved his case that he purchased the suit land from one of the rightful owners, namely Jatindra Debnath who was the successor of one of the owners, Chaitanya Debnath. The plaintiff also brought on record the sale deeds executed by Binanda, Surendra and Ananda at different point of time. According to defendant Nos. 1 and 2, they purchased the suit land on 08.01.1997 from defendant No. 3, Manindra Ram Malakar. Defendant No. 3 did not contest the suit. The purchased deed of defendant Nos. 1 and 2 is exhibited as Exbt. F which shows that defendant Nos. 1 and 2 purchased 0.46 acres of land from defendant No. 3 out of khatian No. 490 of previous plot No. 196 and hal plot No. 383. The purchase deed of Manindra Ram Malakar from Binanda Debnath is marked as Exbt. C which shows Manindra Ram Malakar purchased 10 ganda 1 kara 1 kranta of land from Binanda Debnath out of khatian No. 331 plot No. 196 and the purchase was dated 12.04.1965. The said Manindra Ram Malakar also purchased 17 ganda of land from Ananda Debnath on 18.5.1966 out of khatian No. 331, plot No. 190/196. It is apparent that old plot No. 196, which corresponds to hal plot No. 383 was recorded in the name of Jogendra and Jatindra in the finally published khatian No. 290 dated 12.01.1984. Exbt. The said Manindra Ram Malakar also purchased 17 ganda of land from Ananda Debnath on 18.5.1966 out of khatian No. 331, plot No. 190/196. It is apparent that old plot No. 196, which corresponds to hal plot No. 383 was recorded in the name of Jogendra and Jatindra in the finally published khatian No. 290 dated 12.01.1984. Exbt. B is the khatian No. 490 in the name of Manindra Ram Malakar which shows that sabek plot No. 196 and hal plot No. 383, land measuring 0.46 acres was recorded. Khatian No. 490, marked as Exbt. A shows that it was subsequently prepared in the name of defendant Nos. 1 and 2. Those khatians(marked as Exbt. A and Exbt. B), as it appears, were prepared at the time of mutation of land purchased by the defendants taking out land from the original khatian. The defendants placed on record no order of the mutation proceeding. The plaintiff produced on record the finally published khatian(Exbt. 1) in the name of Jogendra and Jatindra. No finally published khatian in the name of Binanda is produced. No similar finally published khatian in the name of Ananda also placed on record to show that the land purchased by Manindra Ram Malakar mentioning part of plot No. 190/196 actually belonged to the original owners. The khatians prepared by the revenue officer at the time of mutation cannot out-weight the finally published khatian prepared at the time of survey and settlement operation. I am constrained to observe that the trial Court and the appellate Court utterly failed to consider the evidence on record in its true perspective and arrived at a wrong finding only taking into account the khatian prepared in the name of Manindra Ram Malakar and the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 at the time of mutation proceeding. While the plaintiff has purchased the suit land by registered deed from original owners and the khatinas of original owners are placed on record and the ownership of the original owners, i.e. Uttam Debnath, Chaitanya Debnath and Netai Debnath and the subsequent inheritance by their legal heirs are not in dispute, the plaintiff’s right title and interest in the suit land cannot be denied. The plaintiff adduced oral evidence of himself and five other witnesses about his possession in the suit land and defendant also adduced evidence that they are in possession of the suit land. The plaintiff adduced oral evidence of himself and five other witnesses about his possession in the suit land and defendant also adduced evidence that they are in possession of the suit land. While the title is in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the suit land, his physical possession also supported by the oral evidence of the witnesses, the trial Court was absolutely wrong in arriving at a finding that the plaintiff has failed to prove his case. The appellate Court actually passed no judgment considering the pleadings and evidence on record and hence it is better not to discuss about the judgment of the appellate Court. 14. In view of the discussions made above, the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court in T.S. 6 of 1997 and affirmed by the appellate Court in T.A. No. 1 of 2004 are set aside. Issue No. 3 is accordingly decided in favour of the plaintiff. Right, title, interest and possession of the plaintiff in the suit land is declared. The defendants are restrained from entering into and/or disturbing the possession of the plaintiff in the suit land. 15. The appeal is accordingly allowed and disposed of. No order as to costs. 16. Send back the L.C. record along with a copy of this judgment.