JUDGMENT S.C. Das, J.:-- 1. This civil second appeal under Section 100 of CPC is directed against the appellate decree dated 18.09.2004 passed by learned Addl. District Judge, Court No. 2, West Tripura, Agartala in Title Appeal No. 36 of 2002, whereunder, the learned Addl. District Judge reversed the original judgment and decree dated 25.06.2002, passed by learned Civil Judge(Sr. Division), Court No. 1, West Tripura, Agartala, in Title Suit No. 117 of 1997. 2. Heard learned senior counsel, Mr. D. Chakraborty, assisted by learned counsel, Mr. H. Laskar for the appellants and learned counsel, Mr. D.C. Roy for the respondents. 3. By order dated 11.09.2006, the second appeal has been admitted for hearing on the following substantial questions of law: “(i) Whether the learned first appellate court has correctly reversed the finding of the learned trial court by deciding the question of limitation in filing a suit under Section 11(4) of the TLR & LR Act? (ii) Whether in view of the provision contained in Section 43(3) of the said Act regarding the presumption about correctness of the entries recorded in the finally published khatian, the onus to show existence of keyemi talluk No. 191 with respect to the suit land lies on the plaintiff-respondent to rebut such presumption?” 4. Monoranjan Nath(since deceased), the predecessor of respondents, as plaintiff(hereinafter mentioned as plaintiff) instituted Title Suit No. 117 of 1997 under Section 11(4) of the Tripura Land Revenue & Land Reforms Act, 1960(for short, TLR & LR Act) seeking declaration of title of the plaintiff in the suit land and further praying for cancellation of the records of rights prepared in the names of the defendants in respect of the suit land described in the Schedule of the plaint, measuring 36 drones 7 kanies of tilla and lunga class of lands of Kayemi Taluk No. 191, jote No. 820. It is the case of the plaintiff that the suit land is the jote land belonged to the plaintiff and it was wrongly recorded as khas land at the time of survey and settlement operation and challenging such wrong recording of the suit land as khas land, the plaintiff moved revenue court of the Collector under Section 11(3) of the TLR & LR Act and that application of the plaintiff was registered as revenue case No. 8/1989 and by order dated 05.05.1997 the Collector dismissed the petition of the plaintiff and hence the plaintiff filed the suit seeking declaration and consequential relief. 5. In short, the case of the plaintiff is that, Rana Budhjung Bahadur, Ex-Chief Minister of Ex-Maharaja of Tripura, was the owner and/or Talukdar of Kayemi Taluk No. 191 of the then Revenue Mouja, “Uttar Debendra Cahndra Nagar”. Legal representatives of Rana Budhjung Bahadur by registered patta No. 1-20927 dated 21.09.1956(Exbt. 2) settled 7 drones(drone is a local measurement) of land and by registered patta No. 1-10465 dated 15.12.1957 (Exbt. 3) settled 70 drones of land and by registered patta No. 1-6232 dated 28.03.1959(Exbt. 4) settled 77 drones of land, totaling 154 drones of land in favour of the plaintiff. All those settlements of Taluka lands were held before the TLR & LR Act, 1960 came into force. The plaintiff paid nazarana and revenue to the Talukdar and on receipt of nazarana as well as revenue, the Talukdar executed the registered patta transferring the land classified as tilla and lunga in favour of the plaintiff. At that relevant point of time there was influx of refugees and the plaintiff from time to time sold out 117 drones and 9 kanies(kani is also a local measurement) to different 202 numbers of purchasers and handed over possession. Rest 36 drones 7 kanies of land left in the hand of the plaintiff. The settled land of the plaintiff was recorded in jote No. 820 of Kayemi Taluk No. 191. Rest 36 drones 7 kanies of land left in the hand of the plaintiff. The settled land of the plaintiff was recorded in jote No. 820 of Kayemi Taluk No. 191. The plaintiff paid revenue of the settled land to the Talukdar and after the Taluka was vested in the State Government on coming into force of TLR & LR Act, 1960, w.e.f. 14.11.1961, the plaintiff automatically became a jotedar of the taluki land settled in his favour and so at the time of survey and settlement operation the settled land of the plaintiff was supposed to be recorded in his name as jote land but it was wrongly recorded as khas land and hence the plaintiff instituted the present suit when his prayer under Section 11(3) was turned down by the Collector. The plaintiff claimed that he is entitled to get a decree of declaration of right title interest in the suit land and also prayed for a direction of correction of the RORs. 6. Defendants contested the suit by filing a joint written statement, inter alia, stating that the boundaries described in the registered pattas were vague and baseless, contradictory and conflicting with each others and so the plaintiff is not entitled to get any relief. It is also stated that the suit land was full of jungle and there was no such measurement at all as claimed by the plaintiff. It is further stated that by operation of “sun-set law” prior to 14.11.1961, the Taluka was already vested in the Government as khas land for non-payment of revenue and so the suit land has been correctly recorded at the time of survey and settlement operation. According to the defendants, the Collector correctly decided the proceedings under Section11(3) of the TLR & LR Act and the suit should be dismissed. 7. The trial Court considering the pleadings of the parties framed four issues, namely-- “A. Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form? B. Whether the suit land was the jote land and belonged to the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff and if so whether the defendants wrongly recorded it in khash khatian? C. Whether the plaintiff has any right, title and interest over the suit land? D. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any relief and if so upto what extent?” 8. B. Whether the suit land was the jote land and belonged to the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff and if so whether the defendants wrongly recorded it in khash khatian? C. Whether the plaintiff has any right, title and interest over the suit land? D. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any relief and if so upto what extent?” 8. In support of the plaintiff’s case, two witnesses were examined, namely PW1, Chandi Rani Bhowmik and PW2, Mati Lal Bhowmik. Following documents were also exhibited on behalf of the plaintiff-- Ext. 1 - Certified copy of the order dt. 28-1-95 u/s. 11(3) of the Act in revenue Case No. 8 of 1989. Ext. 2.- Certified copy of registered(patta) Deed No. 1-20927 dt. 19-6-1056. Ext. 3- Certified copy of registered(patta) Deed No. 1-10465 dt. 15-12-1957. Ext. 4.- Certified copy of registered(patta) Deed No. 1-6232 dated 28-3-1959. Ext. 5.- Land revenue receipt in jote No. 820 of kayemi taluk No. 191 issued by the Tahasildar of the tallukder. Ext. 6.- Certified copy of report of the Dy. Collector, West Tripura in connection with the case U/s. 11(3) of the Act. Ext. 7.- Certified copy of the letter of the District Sub-registrar, Agartala including the list of deeds executed by the plaintiff. Ext. 8. -Certified copy of report of the Circle Officer of S.D.O., Sadar, Agartala in connection with the Case u/s. 11(3) of the Act. Ext. 9.- Certified copy of extract of Map showing jote No. 820 of village Uttar Debendra Chandra Nagar, obtained from the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court, Agartala Bench, Agartala, which was submitted in connection with the certain case. 9. On behalf of the defendants one witness, namely Sri. Sambhu Nama, Addl. S.D.O., Sadar was examined as DW1 and the defendants also exhibited two items of documents, namely-- Ext. A series. - Entire record of revenue case No. 8/1989 under Section 11(3) of TLR & LR CT. Ext. B. Series. - Photocopies of form No. 55 of TLR & LR Rules. 10. The trial Court decided all the issues against the plaintiff and accordingly dismissed the suit. Aggrieved, the legal representatives of deceased plaintiff, Monoranjan Nath preferred Title Appeal No. 36 of 2002 and the appeal was allowed by the appellate Court by impugned judgment dated 18.09.2004. Challenging that judgment the present second appeal is filed. 11. Learned senior counsel, Mr. 10. The trial Court decided all the issues against the plaintiff and accordingly dismissed the suit. Aggrieved, the legal representatives of deceased plaintiff, Monoranjan Nath preferred Title Appeal No. 36 of 2002 and the appeal was allowed by the appellate Court by impugned judgment dated 18.09.2004. Challenging that judgment the present second appeal is filed. 11. Learned senior counsel, Mr. Chakraborty in course of his submission has concentrated on substantial question of law No. 2 and submitted that by operation of “sun-set law” Taluka was already vested in the Government before TLR & LR Act came into force. So, by dint of Exbts. 2, 3 and 4, the original plaintiff, Monoranjan Nath practically acquired no right title interest in the suit land. Referring to Rajaswa Sambandhiya Niyambali(Act No. 1 of 1290 T.E.) embodied in Tripura Code, Volume-II, learned counsel has submitted that the revenue of Kayemi Taluks and reclaimed Taluks which have been settled permanently shall be paid before sun-set of those days mentioned in the Schedule, i.e. the days of a particular month. Since there is no record produced by the plaintiff that the revenue of Kayemi Taluk No. 191 was paid to the Government as per that law which was in force in the Tripura Administration, it should be presumed that the legal representatives of the Talukdar Rana Budhjung Bahadur lost their Taluki rights and consequently the plaintiff acquired no right title and interest by virtue of Exbts. 2, 3 and 4. 12. Learned counsel, Mr. Roy on the other hand has submitted that Exbts. 2, 3 and 4 are three registered pattas executed by the legal representatives of Talukdar, Rana Budhjung Bahadur before TLR & LR Act came into force after the Princely State merged with the Union of India. If Taluka already vested in the Government, at that time, the pattas would not have been registered, and once registered pattas were in existence it has to be presumed that the Talukdars having right title interest executed the pattas in favour of the plaintiff taking nazarana and revenue of the settled land. He has also referred the documents marked as Exbt. 7 series wherein it was shown that by registered deed the plaintiff sold out land from the settled land of pattas to as many as 202 purchasers and those purchasers are possessing the land. He has also referred the documents marked as Exbt. 7 series wherein it was shown that by registered deed the plaintiff sold out land from the settled land of pattas to as many as 202 purchasers and those purchasers are possessing the land. He has also submitted that no document placed by the defendants to show that any such ‘sun-set law’ was made in operation for making the Taluka land as khas land due to non-payment of revenue. The plaintiff, therefore, proved his case with sufficient documentary evidence that the suit land belonged to the plaintiff as the settled land by pattas and hence in the second appeal there is nothing to interfere in the judgment and decree passed by the appellate Court. It is also submitted by Mr. Roy that there is no allegation of perversity and so this Court in the second appeal may not enter into the factual aspect of the case. 13. Rana Budhjung Bahadur was the Talukdar of Kayemi Taluk No. 191 during the time of the then Maharajas is not in dispute. Exbts. 2, 3 and 4 are three registered pattas of the years 1956, 1957 and 1959 respectively executed by the legal representatives of Rana Budhjung in favour of the plaintiff, thereby, settled 7 drones, 70 drones and 77 drones of land respectively, totaling 154 drones. There is a presumption of genuineness of the registered deed unless it is rebutted. There is no challenge to those registered deeds. It is the contention of the defendants that by operation of ‘sun-set law’ Talukas were already vested in the Government but no scrap of evidence adduced to that effect. While there are registered instruments of transferring of Taluka land, a simple pleading and oral evidence that Taluka was extinguished due to operation of ‘sun-set law’ cannot be entertained in the absence of any documentary evidence to that effect. If for non-payment of revenue the Taluka lands were made khas, there must be some order by a competent revenue authority to that effect. No such document is placed on record. The plaintiff consistently asserted that Taluka was in existence and Taluka land was transferred to him and he paid revenue to the Talukdar(Exbt. 5). He has discharged his burden of prove that the suit land belonged to him as Taluka land settled in his favour. No such document is placed on record. The plaintiff consistently asserted that Taluka was in existence and Taluka land was transferred to him and he paid revenue to the Talukdar(Exbt. 5). He has discharged his burden of prove that the suit land belonged to him as Taluka land settled in his favour. Since the defendants raised the plea that by operation of ‘sun-set law’ Taluki rights of the Talukdars extinguished and the Taluka was vested in the Government, burden lies on them to prove the fact by adducing documentary evidence that a competent revenue authority passed order vesting the Taluka land in the Government for non-payment of revenue. According to law, title to a property from one person to another person passes through the document of title. A settlement record cannot be a proof of title to any movable property. The trial Court grossly erred in law holding that since at the time of settlement the land was not recorded in the name of the plaintiff he was not entitled to get decree. Title does not extinguish simply because during settlement operation one did not take proper step for recording his name in the ROR. The plaintiff brought on record his document of title. Rana Budhjung was the Talukdar of Kayemi Taluk No. 191. On his death, his successors stepped to his shoes. Those successors of Rana Budhjung Bahadur executed registered patta marked Exbts. 2, 3 and 4 in favour of the plaintiff and thereby settled 154 drones of land on receipt of nazarana and revenue. Exbt. 5 is the proof of payment of revenue to the Talukdar by the plaintiff. Exbt. 7 further proves that plaintiff after settlement of land by means of those pattas sold out 117 drones 9 kanies of land to 202 numbers of purchasers and handed over possession. There remained 36 drones 7 kanies of land in his purse. It is an admitted position that after the TLR & LR Act came into force the intermediary rights were vested in the Government by operation of law as per the provisions prescribed in Part-IV, Chapter XV of the TLR & LR Act. When the rights of intermediaries were abolished, the raiyats who were occupying the Taluka land, under the intermediary, automatically acquired jote right in their respective land. When the rights of intermediaries were abolished, the raiyats who were occupying the Taluka land, under the intermediary, automatically acquired jote right in their respective land. Jote No. 820 was opened in the name of the plaintiff for the Taluka land settled in his name which is evident in the record. Whether the plaintiff was entitled to retain such vast area of land or not after the rights of intermediaries were vested in the Government was altogether a different question which has not been raised in this suit. The first appellate Court made observation in this respect in the impugned judgment dated 18.09.2004 in Title Appeal No. 36 of 2002. The revenue authorities will be at liberty to examine the issue as per the observation of the appellate Court. But in the given facts and circumstances of the case I find no justification at all to interfere in the judgment passed by the appellate Court. 14. On the point of limitation learned senior counsel, Mr. Chakraborty ultimately did not insist when he has found that the final order passed by the Collector under Section 11(3) dated 25.03.1997 was signed by the Collector 05.05.1997 and so the limitation of six months shall run after 05.05.1997 and not from 25.03.1997. On this point also, as I find, the trial Court was absolutely wrong in arriving at a finding that the suit was barred by limitation and I am in full agreement with the observation of the appellate Court that the suit was within the period of limitation. 15. In view of the discussions made above, the second appeal is found to be devoid of any merit and hence dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs. 16. Send back the L.C. record along with a copy of this judgment.