JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. A.C. Sarma, learned counsel for the appellants. Also heard Mr. A. Sattar as well as Mr. Z. Mukid, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This second appeal by the plaintiffs is preferred against the judgment and decree dated 14.06.2004, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Kamrup, Guwahati in Title Appeal No. 11/2003 affirming the judgment and decree dated 11.06.2003, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) No. 3, Guwahati in Title Suit No. 114/2000, whereby the suit of the plaintiffs was dismissed. 3. The plaintiffs filed the suit for right, title, interest, recovery of possession and for injunction. Case set out in the plaint was that one Pocha Kalita was allotted a plot of land measuring 2 Katha 10 Lecha on payment of premium, in the year 1963, which is described in Schedule – A to the plaint. Pocha Kalita had one brother, Diparu Kalita and the plaintiffs are the legal representatives of Diparu Kalita. It is pleaded that Pocha Kalita died unmarried in the year 1967 and Diparu Kalita in the year 1980. It is averred that on the death of Pocha Kalita, the land devolved on Diparu Kalita and he continued to be in possession on his own right openly, adversely and in open assertion to all others and regularly paid land revenue. 4. The plaintiffs contended to be in possession and while they were in such possession, in the month of December 1997, a notice was received from the Office of the Circle Officer, Palasbari Revenue Circle in Mutation Case No. K.P. No. 25/97-98 filed by the defendant No. 1 seeking mutation of his name on the basis of exchange. Objection was filed by the plaintiffs in the said mutation case. Thereafter, on 28.02.2000, the defendants removed the fencing and sought to raise a tin-chali and to dig up earth and such actions were resisted by the plaintiffs. 5. A proceeding under Sections 145/146 Cr.P.C. was initiated by the plaintiff No. 2, Bhadreswar Kalita, registered as Case No. 88m/2000 and initially, an attachment order was passed. Later on, the same was vacated and thereafter, the defendants raised a temporary chali, collected bricks in order to raise pucca structure. On being protested, defendant No. 1 informed the plaintiffs that he had got the suit land by right of purchase. Later on, the same was vacated and thereafter, the defendants raised a temporary chali, collected bricks in order to raise pucca structure. On being protested, defendant No. 1 informed the plaintiffs that he had got the suit land by right of purchase. In view of such assertion, enquiries were made, which revealed that there is an entry in the Chitha dated 20.04.1970 showing that Pocha Kalita had sold the land to the defendant No. 1. It is stated that as Pocha Kalita died in the year 1967 and as he did not know how to read and write, the entry was obviously made illegally and fraudulently. It was also stated that Pocha Kalita never sold the suit land and delivered possession to defendants. Cause of action was stated to have arisen on 28.02.2000. 6. The defendants filed written statement stating that since the lifetime of Pocha Kalita, the suit land was possessed by the father of the defendant No. 1, Amrit Kalita and after his demise in the year 1971, suit land was being possessed by the defendant No. 1 openly and adversely without any interference from any quarter. 7. On the basis of the pleadings, the following issues were framed by the learned Trial Court. “(1) Whether the suit is barred by limitation? (2) Whether the suit is properly valued and proper court fees has been paid thereon? (3) Whether the plaintiffs have right, title and interest over the suit land? (4) Whether the defendants have purchased the suit land and they have possession over the suit land? (5) Whether the plaintiffs were dispossessed by the defendants in the month of February 2000? (6) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the relief as claimed for.” 8. Subsequently, Issue No. 4 was struck-off by an order dated 03.06.2003 and the same was again framed as follows: “4. Whether the defendants have been possessing the suit land by right of adverse possession?” 9. In support of their respective cases, plaintiffs examined 4 witnesses and defendants examined 2 witnesses. Subsequently, Issue No. 4 was struck-off by an order dated 03.06.2003 and the same was again framed as follows: “4. Whether the defendants have been possessing the suit land by right of adverse possession?” 9. In support of their respective cases, plaintiffs examined 4 witnesses and defendants examined 2 witnesses. The plaintiff had exhibited the Treasury Challan for payment of premium as Exhibit – 1, certified copy of Jamabandi as Exhibit – 2, notice of Mutation Case No. K.P. No. 25/97-98 as Exhibit – 3, copy of the order dated 24.03.2000 as Exhibit – 4, land revenue receipts as Exhibit – 5(1) and 5(2) and extract of the relevant copy of the Chitha as Exhibit – 6. 10. The learned Trial Court held that name of defendant No. 1 was recorded in the Chitha on 10.04.1970 but as the suit was instituted on 28.02.2000, plaintiffs’ suit was filed beyond the period of limitation. Learned Trial Court also noted that defendant had taken three different pleas: adverse possession, purchase and exchange of land. Learned Trial Court recorded the finding that the plaintiffs failed to prove that the defendants dispossessed the plaintiffs in the month of February, 2000. Right, title and interest of the plaintiffs was negated by the learned Trial Court as they failed to prove that their title was subsisting at the time of institution of the suit. Learned Trial Court on the basis of Exhibit – 6, exhibited by the plaintiffs, held that Pocha Kalita had sold the said suit land on 20.04.1970 and delivered possession, and therefore, the cause of action has arisen from 20.04.1970. The learned Trial Court observed that there was no material produced by the plaintiffs that Pocha Kalita died in the year 1967 or that he was an illiterate person. 11. Learned lower Appellate Court held that plaintiffs failed to adduce any evidence that price of suit land was more than Rs. 100/-, and therefore, immovable property can be sold by delivery of possession and without any registered instrument. The land revenue receipts exhibited by the plaintiffs were also of the years, 1999 and 2001, and accordingly, in view of the endorsement dated 20.04.1970 made in the Chitha, Exhibit – 6, the learned lower Appellate Court held that suit land was sold by Pocha Kalita to the defendant No. 1, leaving no land to be inherited by Diparu Kalita or by the plaintiffs. On the premises aforesaid, the appeal was dismissed. 12. This appeal was admitted to be heard by an order dated 01.06.2005 on the following substantial question of law: “Whether the endorsement on the citha creates title over the land without any registered deed as required under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act?” 13. Mr. A.C. Sarma, learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that plaintiffs had proved their title by exhibiting the receipt for payment of premium, Exhibit - 1 and the record of right, Exhibit – 2. He has also highlighted the shifting stand of the defendants with regard to the nature of his possession. It is submitted that the learned lower Appellate Court made out a new case by holding that in absence of any evidence from the side of the plaintiffs regarding price of the land being in excess of Rs. 100/-, land was actually sold to the defendant No. 1 after getting proper price, as demonstrated by Ext. 6. It is submitted by him that on the basis of endorsement in the Chitha, no title can be passed and he draws the attention of the Court to Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, for short, T.P. Act. 14. The learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the plaintiffs were aware about the Chitha mutation recorded in the year 1970, and therefore, Diparu Kalita, though alive till the year 1980, did not make any attempt to have his name mutated in the jamabandi on the basis of inheritance. Though the plaintiffs had mentioned in the plaint that the Chitha entry was fraudulent, no prayer was made for cancellation of the said mutation recorded on the basis of sale. It is submitted that the fact that the plaintiffs were aware of the Chitha mutation on the basis of sale is evident from the statement made in the plaint that Diparu Kalita was in possession of the land in question adversely and in open assertion. If he had inherited the land, there was no question of being in adverse possession to the true owner. If he had inherited the land, there was no question of being in adverse possession to the true owner. Learned counsel has also drawn the attention to Exhibit – A, a statement of plaintiff No. 2 which was recorded on oath in the mutation proceeding to contend that he had candidly admitted in his deposition-in-chief that they are unaware in whose possession the land in question was and they were not even aware that Pocha Kalita was a pattadar in respect of the said land. On the face of the assertion made in the plaint with regard to Chitha mutation in the year 1970, suit was filed concocting a false story in the year 2000. 15. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the materials on record. 16. The plaintiffs in paragraph 11 of the plaint have stated about the entry in the Chitha in the year 1970, where signature of Pocha Kalita also appears. Though it was contended that Pocha Kalita died in the year 1967 and that he was illiterate, no challenge was made to the purported sale made in the year 1970. The plaintiffs did not bring on record any acceptable material to establish that Pocha Kalita died in the year 1967. Diparu Kalita was an employee of the father of the defendant No. 1 and it is relevant to note that Diparu Kalita, till his death in the year 1980 did not take any steps whatsoever to mutate his name on the basis of inheritance. It will be reasonable to hold bearing in mind the relationship between the parties that fact of sale would have been known to Diparu Kalita. 17. Bhogeswar Kalita, plaintiff No. 2, in K.P. No. 25/97-98, had stated that they were unaware in whose possession the disputed land was, over which, they had no possession. They were unaware that name of Pocha Kalita was continuing in the said patta. It is to be noted that though the Issue No. 4, as it was originally framed, relating to whether the defendants had purchased the suit land and had possession over the suit land was struck off, much of the discussion of the learned lower Appellate Court veered around purchase of land by the defendant No. 1. Arguments are also advanced only on the question of sale. Arguments are also advanced only on the question of sale. Substantial question of law was also framed on the aspect of sale. Be that as it may, the plaintiffs had pleaded in the plaint about alleged selling of land and delivery of possession to the defendants and in that context, it was incumbent on their part to have prayed for cancellation of any transfer of the land. 18. Section 54 of the T.P. Act provides for sale of tangible immovable property of a value less than Rs. 100/- either by registered instrument or by delivery of the property. Therefore, the basic question that will arise is whether there was a sale made by Pocha Kalita to the defendant No. 1. Reflection in the Chitha could be manifestation of the sale. Such recording in the Chitha cannot be said to be the basis for transfer. Endorsement on the basis of Chitha, per se, may not create title over the land. But at the same time, it is to be borne in mind that a registered instrument is necessary only when transfer of immovable property is more than Rs. 100/-. That apart, the suit came to be filed after 30 years and the position that has emerged is that the plaintiffs are not in possession. Bhogeswar Kalita was also shielded by not putting him into the witness-box. One further aspect of the matter is that it is the fundamental principle of law that the plaintiffs, in order to obtain a decree as prayed for, have to establish the case and they cannot take advantage of the weakness in the case projected by the defendants. It is correct that stand of the defendants was somewhat ambivalent. However, the plaintiffs have not proved any documents of title. Jamabandi is not a document of title and it does not create or extinguish title. The plaintiffs only exhibited a Treasury Challan and there is no material on record to connect the said Treasury Challan with the suit land. 19. In view of the above discussions, I am of the considered opinion that no interference is called for in the second appeal, and accordingly, the same is dismissed. No cost. 20. Registry will send back the records.