JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. S. K. Barkataki, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. B. Banerjee, learned Senior counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. This Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 12.07.2004 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Nagaon, in Title Appeal No. 6/2002, affirming the judgment and decree dated 04.04.2002, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagaon, in Title Suit No. 42/1990. 3. The case of the plaintiffs, as projected in the plaint, is that the father of the plaintiffs, Indubhusan Das, was the owner and possessor of land measuring 1 Bigha 3 Katha 8 Lecha in Dag No. 519 of periodic patta No. 14 in Nartam Kisamat. After the death of Indubhusan Das, out of the 1 Bigha 3 Katha 8 Lecha of land, 1 Katha 10 Lecha was sold to pro forma defendant No. 2 and possession was also accordingly delivered. Later on, 3 Katha 8 Lecha of land was sold to pro forma defendant No. 3 and he was also accordingly delivered possession. After the aforesaid transactions, the plaintiffs were in possession of 3 Katha 10 Lecha of land in Dag No. 519. On 14.07.88, they sold 1 Katha 10 Lecha of land to the defendant No. 1. The defendant No. 1 made arrangements to construct a house, which resulted in a dispute between the defendant No. 1 and pro forma defendant No. 2 regarding boundary of their respective land. At that time, the defendant No. 1 was residing in a government quarter and his quarter having been submerged by flood water, he requested the plaintiffs to allow him to construct a thatched house on Schedule-‘Ka’ land and live therein with his family. The plaintiffs allowed the defendant No. 1 to raise a thatched house in Schedule-‘Ka’ land on the condition that he would vacate the land as and when demanded by the plaintiffs. As the plaintiffs required the Schedule-‘Ka’ land for the purpose of making their own construction, request was made to the defendant No. 1 to vacate the land and a notice was also issued to the defendant No. 1 requesting him to vacate the same. The defendant No. 1 replied back through his counsel stating that he was not going to vacate the land as the land in his possession had been purchased by him from the plaintiffs. The defendant No. 1 replied back through his counsel stating that he was not going to vacate the land as the land in his possession had been purchased by him from the plaintiffs. It was pleaded in the plaint that boundaries of the land sold to the defendant No. 1 had been correctly reflected in the sale deed, but there was a mistake in respect of “Kisamat” and “Dag number” of the land in the sale deed and, therefore, a rectification deed was made in this regard. It is pleaded that the land in possession of the defendant No. 1 was entirely different from the land that had been sold to him. Accordingly, the suit was filed seeking a declaration of right, title and interest in respect of ‘Ka’ Schedule land and for eviction of the defendant therefrom; for a declaration that the land sold to the defendant No. 1 and the land described in Schedule-‘Ka’ are entirely different land, etc. Schedule-‘Ka’ referes to 1 Katha land out of the 1 Bigha 3 Katha 8 Lecha in Dag No. 519 with specific boundaries. 4. The defendant No. 1 filed written statement admitting that the plaintiffs became owner of the entire patta land measuring 1 Bigha 3 Katha 8 Lecha in Dag No. 519 of Patta No. 14. Transfer of land to pro forma defendant No. 2 and 3 was also admitted; so also the fact that the plaintiffs remained the owner in possession in respect of 3 Katha 10 Lecha of land. It was stated in the written statement that the plaintiffs No. 1 to 5 had sold 1 Katha 10 Lecha of land to him vide registered sale deed No. 1310 dated 14.07.88 with the following boundaries: North 8 feet path and Dhananjoy Rai South Sri Kaddar East Nityananda Saikia West Pattadars/plaintiffs It was further averred by the defendant No. 1 that possession was delivered then and there and he constructed a residential house and also dug a tube-well and planted some trees. The averments made by the plaintiffs that on his request they had allowed him to reside in ‘Ka’ Schedule land was denied. It was also stated that without any lawful authority the plaintiffs were asking him to vacate the ‘Ka’ Schedule land and, by means of a rectification deed, made without his knowledge, the suit was filed for illegal gain and wrongful bargain. 5. It was also stated that without any lawful authority the plaintiffs were asking him to vacate the ‘Ka’ Schedule land and, by means of a rectification deed, made without his knowledge, the suit was filed for illegal gain and wrongful bargain. 5. On the basis of the pleadings, the learned trial Court framed the following issues: “1. Whether there is any cause of action? 2. Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form? 3. Whether the plaintiff No. 8 is properly represented? 4. Whether the suit is barred by waiver, estoppels and acquiescence? 5. Whether the plaintiffs have right, title and interest over the suit land? 6. Whether the plaintiffs executed a deed of rectification in favour of the defendant? 7. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for? 8. To what relief the plaintiff is entitled?” 6. During trial, the plaintiffs examined 4 witnesses and the defendants also examined 4 witnesses. 7. The plaintiffs exhibited the certified copy of the sale deed dated 14.07.88, registered on 16.07.88, as Ext.-2. The defendant produced the original copy of the said sale deed and exhibited the same as Ext.-‘Ka’. PW2, Office Assistant of the Sub-Registrar’s Office, proved the said deed with the Volume Register, which he had brought to the Court. The learned Trial Court recorded the finding that the Volume Register, by which PW2 proved the registered deed No. 1310, tallied with the certified copy of the sale deed, Ext.-2, but, the Schedule of Ext.-‘Ka’ and Ext.-2 were found to be totally different. The learned Trial Court held that in the original sale deed, as reflected in Volume Register, there were six Stamp Papers, while in Ext.-‘Ka’, produced by the defendant No. 1, there were five Stamp Papers and that the defendant had removed a Stamp Paper from the original deed where the schedule of the land was mentioned. The learned Trial Court noted as follows: “………. If we look into the number of stamp noted by the stamp vendor at the back side of every stamp paper, we see that stamp papers contained the number 7480, 7481, 7482, 7484 and 7485, it clearly reflects that the stamp paper bearing No. 7483 was missing from the original deed. Definitely the defendant No. 1 with the collusion of the witnesses of the deed writer has done it. Definitely the defendant No. 1 with the collusion of the witnesses of the deed writer has done it. Because the defendant cannot explain where stamp paper bearing No. 7483 has gone. So, it is clearly presumed that the defendant removed the stamp paper of Rs. 200/- from the original deed where schedule of the land was mentioned. The different schedule of the land was written in stamp paper No. 7484 at the suit of the defendant No. 1....” 8. It was also noted by the learned Trial Court as follows: “……From the evidence of PW2 it is clear that the original deed No. 1310 contains 6 stamp papers having one stamp paper of Rs. 500/-, 3 stamp papers of Rs. 200/- and 2 stamp papers of Rs. 40/- each. But the original deed, i.e. Ext. ‘Ka’ which was produced by the defendants contains 5 stamp papers where one stamp paper of Rs. 200/- was missing. ………. The number mentioned by the vendor at the back side of the stamp papers are 7480, 7481, 7482, 7484 and 7485 and No. 7483 was missing. It is clear that the defendant No. 1 removed the 4th page of the original deed where schedule of the land was mentioned and noted the schedule in page 5 with different boundary as his own suit with corroboration of the deed writer and the witnesses ……” 9. The learned Trial Court decided the issues in favour of the plaintiffs and, accordingly, decreed the suit. The defendant No. 1 was directed to vacate the Schedule-‘Ka’ land within 1 year by removing the structures there-from. The learned Trial Court also observed that if the defendant No. 1 failed to vacate the land within the said period, then a decree would be passed to enforce the order. 10. Learned Lower Appellate Court negated the contentions raised on behalf of the defendant No. 1/appellant that the findings of the learned Trial Court were based on surmises and conjectures. The learned Lower Appellate Court also observed that the learned Trial Court had rightly presumed that one Stamp Paper of Rs. 200/-, containing the boundary of the land, had been removed with a view to replace the same with another boundary on an unused stamp paper. The Lower Appellate Court opined that non-production of the rectification deed is not material. The learned Lower Appellate Court also observed that the learned Trial Court had rightly presumed that one Stamp Paper of Rs. 200/-, containing the boundary of the land, had been removed with a view to replace the same with another boundary on an unused stamp paper. The Lower Appellate Court opined that non-production of the rectification deed is not material. The defendant had also admitted that he had purchased land covered by Dag No. 519. The learned Lower Appellate Court upheld the judgment of the trial Court with a modification, whereby the sentence, “….. if he fails to vacate the land within the said specific period then the decree will be issued to enforce the order.” was struck off. 11. By an order passed on 06.06.2005, this appeal was admitted to be heard on the following substantial question of law: “Whether the learned court below erred in decreeing the suit of respondent plaintiff by rejecting the registered Sale Deed No. 1310/1988 (Ex. Ka) in preference to the certified copy of the Sale Deed (Ext.2) proved by the respondent plaintiff by overlooking his pleaded case that the boundaries of the land in the original Sale Deed had to be corrected by a deed of rectification?” 12. On 13.03.2015, while the case was taken up for hearing, this Court passed the following order: “In course of hearing a point has arisen in respect of the boundary of the Ext-Ka land purchased by the appellant/defendant from the respondent/plaintiff to the extent that the said boundary do not tally with the certified copy of the Sale Deed and exhibited by the respondent/plaintiff as Ext. 2. The said boundary as shown in Ext-2 has been held to tally with the Volume Register available in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Nagaon. For the purpose of ascertaining whether the boundary given in Ext-Ka or that of Ext-2 tallies with the said Volume Register, it is deemed essential that this Court gets an opportunity to look at the said Volume Register in original. This exercise is being made in view of the fact that in the event the boundary given in Ext-Ka appears to tally with the said Volume Register, the decisions of the courts below may invite the element of perversity. This exercise is being made in view of the fact that in the event the boundary given in Ext-Ka appears to tally with the said Volume Register, the decisions of the courts below may invite the element of perversity. In that view of the matter, the Registry is directed to take appropriate steps for calling for the records of the Volume Register from the office of the Sub-Registrar, Nagaon, in respect of Sale Ded No. 1310/1988. List this appeal for hearing immediately upon receipt of the records.” 13. Pursuant to the aforesaid order dated 13.03.2015, the Volume Register was requisitioned and the same is placed before the Court. 14. Learned counsel for the parties have perused the Volume Register and satisfied themselves with the contents therein. 15. It appears from the Volume Register that the Dag number of the land in question was written as “512” and “Kisamat” was written as “Kasalukhuwa”. The case of both the parties is that the plaintiffs have right, title and interest only in respect of the land in Dag No. 519 of Nartam Kisamat. The defendant No. 1 also admitted that he had purchased land in Dag No. 519. Learned counsel for the parties submit that Ext.-2 is a replica of the contents of the sale deed in question in the Volume Register. The Dag number is also referred to in Ext.-2 as “512” and “Kisamat” is also referred to as “Kasalukhuwa”. The same demonstrates that “Dag number” and “Kisamat” were wrongly recorded in the sale deed. The Volume Register contains all the details of the sale deed. In respect of deed No. 1310, it is indicated that there are 6 Stamp Papers — one of Rs. 500/-, three of Rs. 200/-each and two of Rs. 40/- each. Ext.-‘Ka’, produced by the defendant No. 1, which is supposed to be the original deed, contains only 5 Stamps Papers with one Stamp Paper of Rs. 200/- missing. To that extent, the finding of the learned courts below is correct. 16. The schedule mentioned in Ext.-‘Ka’ is entirely different from what is recorded in the Volume Register. Nowhere has it been disclosed that the boundaries of the land sold are changed. Even if the boundaries are changed by way of a rectification deed, then also it was a subsequent event. 16. The schedule mentioned in Ext.-‘Ka’ is entirely different from what is recorded in the Volume Register. Nowhere has it been disclosed that the boundaries of the land sold are changed. Even if the boundaries are changed by way of a rectification deed, then also it was a subsequent event. We are concerned herein with the original sale deed and the plaintiffs are not at all relying on any rectification deed. The schedule of the sale deed, produced by the defendant No. 1 as the original sale deed, should have tallied with the schedule of the sale deed mentioned in the Volume Register. The 6 Stamp Papers bore Sl. Nos. 7480, 7481, 7482, 7483, 7484 and 7485, as reflected in the Volume Register. However, Ext.-‘Ka’ does not contain the Stamp Paper bearing Sl. No. 7483. Apparently, the sale deed produced by the defendant No. 1 is not a complete and genuine sale deed inasmuch as one of the pages of the sale deed containing the schedule of the land, as reflected in the Volume Register, is missing therein. That apart, the schedule shown in the sale deed produced by the defendant No. 1 is not corresponding with the schedule as reflected in the Volume Register. It is crystal clear that Ext.-‘Ka’ is a manipulated document and, therefore, no reliance can be placed on the same. In view of the above, the learned Courts below were correct in discarding Ext.-‘Ka’. 18. In view of the above discussion, there is no merit in this appeal and, accordingly, the same is dismissed. The substantial question of law is answered against the appellant. No cost. 19. Registry will send back the records.