JUDGMENT : Pleadings of the parties in both the suits are almost similar. The points of law in both the second appeals are identical. Judgments passed by the trial Court as well as the first appellate Court are also almost identical in both the cases and hence both the appeals were heard together and this common judgment is passed in respect of both the second appeals. 2. Both the second appeals have been admitted on the following identical substantial questions of law:- “(i) Whether the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and the appellate Court suffers from perversity?” 3. FACTS OF RSA NO.37 OF 2011: 3.1 Appellant as plaintiff (hereinafter mentioned as plaintiff) instituted Title Suit No.23 of 2006 against the defendant-respondents (hereinafter mentioned as defendants) in the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Udaipur, South Tripura seeking declaration of his right, title and interest and for recovery of possession of the suit land described in the schedule of the plaint from defendant Nos.1 and 2. 3.2. The plaintiff, inter alia contended that the suit land was a khas land of the Government of Tripura (respondent No.3) which was lying with full of jungles. About 40 years ago he reclaimed the suit land and planted various trees and thereby possessing the suit land. Since the plaintiff was found in possession of the suit land about 30 years ago, respondent No.3 allotted the suit land in his name and he continued his possession. C.S. Khatian No.558 was prepared in his name and subsequently Revisional Survey Khatian No.226 which was finally published on 21.02.1984 was prepared in his name as an allottee of the suit land. The plaintiff could not properly maintain the records of allotment and those were lost. He approached the office of SDM, Udaipur for having a copy of the allotment order but he was told that it was a very old case and in the absence of specific number and date it was not possible to issue a duplicate copy of the allotment order. While he was in possession of the suit land, on 14.04.2000 AD which corresponds to 1st day of Baishakh 1407 BS, he was forcefully dispossessed by the defendant Nos.1 and 2 from the suit land. While he was in possession of the suit land, on 14.04.2000 AD which corresponds to 1st day of Baishakh 1407 BS, he was forcefully dispossessed by the defendant Nos.1 and 2 from the suit land. He approached the Chairman of the Village Committee (Panchayat) of Raiya Bari and a committee meeting was held on 25.08.2006 wherein the defendant Nos.1 and 2 were directed to hand over possession of the suit land to the plaintiff but the defendants did not comply the decision of the village committee in spite of assurance and therefore he instituted the suit for declaration of his title and recovery of possession. 3.3. The defendant Nos.1 and 2 contested the suit by filing joint written statement inter alia contending that the father of defendant No.1 occupied the suit land about 45/50 years ago and had been residing on the suit land. The defendants are in continuous possession of the suit land for 45/50 years and the plaintiff never possessed the suit land. The khatian in the name of the plaintiff was created in collusion with the settlement staff which was false and no right of the plaintiff accrued in the suit land because of that khatian. Since the plaintiff was never in possession of the suit land he cannot get a decree as prayed for. 3.4. Defendant No.3 also contested the suit by filing written statement, inter alia contending that there was an inquiry made by the defendant and it was found that defendant No.1 was possessing 5.40 acres of land and defendant No.2 was possessing 0.20 acres of land out of the suit land and 0.40 acres of land was in possession of Anganwadi Centre. The plaintiff was not found in possession of the suit land. The plaintiff claimed allotment of the suit land in his favour but it was not possible to trace out the allotment case number and year, since the record was very old and therefore the defendant was not in a position either to admit or deny the allotment. It is further stated that on the face of the ROR it appears to the defendant that the allotment was made in favour of the plaintiff, Bipendra Behari Jamatia for 6.00 acres of land. 3.5. The trial Court considering the pleadings of the parties formulated five issues, namely— “1. Whether the suit is maintainable or not? 2. It is further stated that on the face of the ROR it appears to the defendant that the allotment was made in favour of the plaintiff, Bipendra Behari Jamatia for 6.00 acres of land. 3.5. The trial Court considering the pleadings of the parties formulated five issues, namely— “1. Whether the suit is maintainable or not? 2. Whether plaintiff has right, title and interest over the suit land? 3. Whether the suit land as described in the schedule appertaining to R.S. Plot No.2124, Khatian No.226 of Mouja Kachigang Reserve Forest or is covered by any other deeds or Khatian of the defendants? 4. Whether the story of possession of the suit land by the plaintiff and his subsequent dispossession by the defendants is true? 5. To what other relief/reliefs the plaintiff is entitled to?” 3.6. In course of trial the plaintiff examined himself as PW1 and also examined three more witnesses, namely— PW2 Sri Amullya Jamatia PW3 Sri Ratna Bijoy Jamatia PW4 Bhaktahari Jamatia. Out of those witnesses PW3 was not produced for cross-examination and therefore his evidence was not taken to consideration. In support of his case the plaintiff produced two documents marked as Exbt.1 and Exbt.2 which read thus— Exbt.1 Certified copy of Khatian No.226 mouja Kachigang Reserve Forest. Exbt.2 Certified copy of Jamabandi Schedule. On behalf of defendant Nos.1 and 2, defendant No.1 examined himself as DW1 and no documentary evidence adduced. On behalf of defendant No.3, one witness, namely Changla Kr. Jamatia, a staff of the office of SDM, Gandacherra was examined as DW2 and in support of their pleadings two documents were proved, marked as Exbt.A and Exbt.B which read thus— Exbt.A Inquiry report dated 10.01.2007. Exbt.B Trace Map. 3.7. The trial Court considering the pleadings and evidence decided the material issues against the plaintiff and dismissed the suit mainly on the ground that the plaintiff failed to produce the order of allotment in his favour. 3.8. Aggrieved, the plaintiff preferred Title Appeal No.3 of 2010 in the Court of District Judge, South Tripura, Udaipur and the learned District Judge by impugned judgment dated 15.02.2011 dismissed the appeal and hence this second appeal. 4. FACTS OF RSA NO.38 OF 2011: 4.1. 3.8. Aggrieved, the plaintiff preferred Title Appeal No.3 of 2010 in the Court of District Judge, South Tripura, Udaipur and the learned District Judge by impugned judgment dated 15.02.2011 dismissed the appeal and hence this second appeal. 4. FACTS OF RSA NO.38 OF 2011: 4.1. The appellants as plaintiffs(hereinafter mentioned as plaintiffs) instituted Title Suit No.24 of 2006 against the defendant-respondents(hereinafter mentioned as defendants) in the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Udaipur, South Tripura, seeking declaration of right, title and interest and for recovery of possession of the suit land described in the schedule of the plaint. 4.2. The plaintiffs, inter alia contended that their predecessor Ram Chandra Jamatia alias Ram Charan Jamatia was possessing the suit land which was a Government khas land and while the said Ram Chandra alias Ram Charan was found in possession, the respondent No.3 allotted the suit land in his name and Khatian No.232 was prepared in the name of Ram Chandra Jamatia. The predecessor of the plaintiffs was an illiterate person and could not retain the order of allotment properly and it was lost. The plaintiffs since could not find out the allotment order approached the office of Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Udaipur for a duplicate copy but they were informed that it was an old case and in the absence of the specific case number and date it was not possible to issue a duplicate copy of the allotment order. While the plaintiffs were in possession of the suit land, the defendant Nos.1 and 2 on 1st day of Baishakh, 1407 BS, which corresponds to 14.04.2000 dispossessed the plaintiff from the suit land forcefully and took over possession of the suit land. The plaintiffs informed the Chairman of the Raiya Bari Village Committee and a meeting was held on 25.08.2006 wherein the defendant Nos.1 and 2 assured handing over of possession to the plaintiffs but ultimately did not do anything and therefore the plaintiffs instituted the suit for declaration of their title and recovery of possession of the suit land. 4.3. Defendant Nos.1 and 2 submitted a joint written statement denying the averments made in the plaint and further stated that father of defendant No.1 had entered into possession of the suit land about 45/50 years ago and continued in possession of the suit land. 4.3. Defendant Nos.1 and 2 submitted a joint written statement denying the averments made in the plaint and further stated that father of defendant No.1 had entered into possession of the suit land about 45/50 years ago and continued in possession of the suit land. No allotment order was issued in the name of Ram Chandra alias Ram Charan, the predecessor of the plaintiffs and the khatian was created falsely in collusion with the settlement staff. The plaintiffs and their predecessor never possessed the suit land and so the plaintiffs were not entitled to get any decree. 4.4. Defendant No.3 also contested the suit by filing a written statement inter alia contending that they have made a field inquiry and it was found that defendant No.1 was possessing 4.40 acres of land out of the suit land and the rest 0.20 acres of land were in possession of one Karna Sadhan Jamatia. The defendant further stated that it was not possible on the part of the defendant to trace out the records of the allotment since it was very old and there was no reference of case number, etc. It was further stated that on the face of RoR the allotment was made in favour of Ram Chandra Jamatia but the possession was found in favour of defendant No.1 and another Karna Sadhan Jamatia. 4.5. The trial Court considering the pleadings of both the parties framed the following issues— “(1) Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form and nature? (2) Whether plaintiffs have right, title and interest for the suit land? (3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover vacant possession of the suit land? (4) To what other relief/reliefs the plaintiffs are entitled to?” 4.6. In course of trial plaintiff No.2 Krishnadayal Jamatia examined himself as PW1 and also examined three more witnesses, namely— PW2 Sri Bhaktahari Jamatia PW3 Sri Ratna Bijoy Jamatia PW4 Amullya Jamatia. Out of those witnesses PW3 was not produced for crossexamination and therefore his evidence was discarded. The plaintiffs also proved the following documents— Exbt.1 Certified copy of Khatian No.232 mouja Kachigang Reserve Forest. Exbt.2 Certified copy of Jamabandi Schedule. Defendant No.1 examined himself as DW1, but adduced no documentary evidence. On behalf of defendant No.3, one witness, namely Changla Kr. Out of those witnesses PW3 was not produced for crossexamination and therefore his evidence was discarded. The plaintiffs also proved the following documents— Exbt.1 Certified copy of Khatian No.232 mouja Kachigang Reserve Forest. Exbt.2 Certified copy of Jamabandi Schedule. Defendant No.1 examined himself as DW1, but adduced no documentary evidence. On behalf of defendant No.3, one witness, namely Changla Kr. Jamatia, a staff of the office of SDM, Gandacherra has been examined as DW2 and on behalf of defendant No.3 the following documents have been proved, marked as Exbt.A and Exbt.B which read thus— Exbt.A Inquiry report dated 10.01.2007. Exbt.B Trace Map. 4.7. The trial Court decided the materials issues against the plaintiffs and dismissed the suit on the ground that the plaintiffs failed to produce the allotment order. 4.8. Aggrieved, the plaintiffs preferred Title Appeal No.4 of 2010 in the Court of District Judge, South Tripura, Udaipur and the learned District Judge by impugned judgment dated 15.02.2011 dismissed the appeal and hence this second appeal. 5. Learned counsel, Mr. Daschoudhury appearing for the plaintiff-appellants in both the appeals submitted that the trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs since the plaintiffs could not produce the order of allotment which was lost. The plaintiff of TS 23 of 2006 and the predecessor of the plaintiffs of TS 24 of 2006 were illiterate tribals residing in remote village and they could not preserve the order of allotment which was lost and they approached the office of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate for having a duplicate copy but duplicate copy could not be supplied since the records could not be traced out by the office of the SDM. The respondent No.3, i.e. the State of Tripura represented by DM & Collector admitted the fact that the suit lands of the particular suits were allotted in the name of the plaintiff of TS 23 of 2006 and in the name of the predecessor of the plaintiffs of TS 24 of 2006 and in the khatian it was clearly mentioned that it was an allottee land. Though the trial Court has dismissed the suit for non-production of the allotment order whereas the appellate Court made an observation that the fact of allotment in favour of the plaintiff of TS 23 of 2006 and in the name of the predecessor of the plaintiff of TS 24 of 2006 have been proved but since they were not found in possession at the time of inquiry, the appeal was dismissed. He has also submitted that the finally published khatians clearly proves that the plaintiffs were in possession of the suit land. The principal defendants though claimed that they were in possession of the suit lands for 45/50 years but there is no scrap of paper to show that they have been in possession of the suit lands for such period of time whereas the khatians which have been proved as Exbt.1 in both the suits clearly prove the possession of the plaintiffs in the suit lands. Had the defendants were in possession of the suit land for the last 45/50 years, definitely their names would have been reflected in the khatian and they also did never challenge the entries in the khatian. While the khatians have been proved and the pro-defendant No.3, i.e. the State of Tripura has not denied the allotment of the suit land in favour of the plaintiff/predecessor of the plaintiffs respectively, the trial Court as well as the appellate Court would held that the plaintiffs proved their right, title and interest and would direct recovery of possession of the suit land in their favour. 6. Learned counsel, Mr. Dutta appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2 in RSA 37 of 2011 and respondent No.1 in RSA No.38 of 2011 submitted that entry in the revenue record does not confer title. The plaintiffs only proved the khatians and Jababandi in their names but could not prove the allotment order and hence the trial Court as well as the first appellate Court rightly dismissed the suits and the appeals. According to Mr. Dutta, since the trial Court and the appellate Court arrived at a concurrent finding, in the second appeal this Court need not interfere in the judgment and prima facie there is no perversity in the finding. In course of his submission he has referred the following case laws: 1. AIR 2008 SC 901 , Gurunath Mahohar Pavaskar & Ors. Dutta, since the trial Court and the appellate Court arrived at a concurrent finding, in the second appeal this Court need not interfere in the judgment and prima facie there is no perversity in the finding. In course of his submission he has referred the following case laws: 1. AIR 2008 SC 901 , Gurunath Mahohar Pavaskar & Ors. v. Nagesh Siddappa Navalgund & Ors. 2. AIR 1971 SC 681 , Dayaram & Ors. v. Dawalatshah & Anr. 3. 2004(1) GLT(SC) 8, Md. Mohammad Ali v. Jagadish Kalita & Ors. 4. 2010 AIR SCW 3873, Atla Sidda Reddy v. Busi Subba Readdy & Ors. 5. AIR 2009 SC 2966 , T.K. Mohammed Abubucker v. P.S.M. Ahmed Abul Khader. 6. (2007) 4 GLR 610, Dayal Hari Paul & Ors. v. Pradip Kumar Lahkar & Ors. 7. (2000) 7 SCC 409 , Thimmaiah & Ors. v. Ningamma & Anr. 7. None appeared on behalf of defendant-respondent No.3, the State of Tripura. 8. It is an admitted position that defendant Nos.1 and 2 in both the suits/appeals are in possession of the suit lands of the respective suits. It is the case of the plaintiffs that they have been dispossessed by defendant Nos.1 and 2 on 14.04.2000 and from that date the defendants are possessing the suit lands. On the contrary, the defendant Nos.1 and 2 in both the suits contended that they have been possessing the suit lands for last 45/50 years by themselves and previously by their predecessor. It is also an admitted position that Exbt.1 in TS 23 of 2006 is the khatian in the name of the plaintiff and Exbt.2 is a Jamabandi in the name of the plaintiff. Similarly, in TS 24 of 2006 Exbt.1 is the khatian in the name of Ram Chandra Jamatia, the predecessor of the plaintiffs and Exbt.2 is the Jamabandi in the name of Ram Chandra. The defendants contended that those khatians were created in collusion with the settlement staff. 9. The main issue which falls for consideration and decision is what shall be the value of Exbt.1, i.e. the khatian prepared in the name of the plaintiff/predecessor of the plaintiffs in the respective suits and whether in the absence of the allotment orders the plaintiffs were entitled to get declaration of title? 10. A khatian/record of right is not a document of title. 10. A khatian/record of right is not a document of title. But it is a document which proves that it was prepared in due process according to law and until it is rebutted the entries made therein should be presumed to be correct. Section 43 of the Tripura Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act reads as follows: “43. (1) When a record of rights has been prepared, the survey officer shall publish a draft of the record in such manner and for such period as may be prescribed and shall receive and consider any objections which may be made during the period of such publication, to any entry therein or to any omission therefrom. (2) When all objections have been considered and disposed of in accordance with the rules made in this behalf, the survey officer shall cause the record to be finally published in the prescribed manner. (3) Every entry in the record of rights as finally published shall, until the contrary is proved, be presumed to be correct.” In view of the above provision, since Exbt.1 khatians in both the suits were finally published khatians in the names of plaintiff/predecessor of the plaintiffs the entries made therein should be presumed to be correct until it is rebutted. The defendant Nos.1 and 2 produced neither any documentary nor any oral evidence to rebut the entries made in the khatians. The plaintiff in TS 23 of 2006 examined himself as PW1 and he proved the khatian as well as adduced oral evidence to show that he was dispossessed by the defendant Nos.1 and 2 in the year 2000. He is materially supported by PWs 2 and 4. The plaintiff claimed that he got allotment of the suit land about 35 years ago and had been possessing the suit land. Exbt.1 khatian proved by the plaintiff proves his possession on the suit land till he allegedly dispossessed by the defendant Nos.1 and 2. PWs 2 and 4 supported the contention of the plaintiff that the plaintiff was dispossessed about seven years ago. Similarly, in TS No.24 of 2006 plaintiff No.2 stated that the suit land was allotted in the name of his father deceased Ram Chandra and that they were in possession of the suit land and they further alleged that the defendant Nos.1 and 2 dispossessed them in the year 2000. Similarly, in TS No.24 of 2006 plaintiff No.2 stated that the suit land was allotted in the name of his father deceased Ram Chandra and that they were in possession of the suit land and they further alleged that the defendant Nos.1 and 2 dispossessed them in the year 2000. They were materially supported by PWs 2 and 4 and they made specific statement that about seven years ago the defendants dispossessed the plaintiffs. The oral evidence of PWs in both the suits in respect of their possession and dispossession has not been shaken in cross-examination. 11. In both the suits the defendant No.1 only examined himself as DW1 on behalf of defendant Nos.1 and 2. Neither any other oral nor any documentary evidence adduced in support of their contention/pleading that the defendant Nos.1 and 2 or their predecessor possessing the suit land for last 45/50 years. Had it been so, their possession ought to have been reflected in the khatian. There is no entry in the khatian that the defendants were at any point of time possessing the suit land. The oral and documentary evidence clearly proves that the plaintiffs were in possession of the suit land and the record of right was prepared in the name of the plaintiffs/predecessor of the plaintiffs showing them in possession and according to the plaintiffs they were dispossessed on 14.04.2000. The defendants though denied the fact of dispossession on 14.04.2000 but could not discard the evidence of the plaintiffs on that score. I find no reason at all to disbelieve the case of the plaintiffs in view of the oral and documentary evidence that the plaintiffs were in possession of the suit land and they have been dispossessed by the defendant Nos.1 and 2 of the respective suit in the year 2000. 12. Learned counsel, Mr. Dutta appearing for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 in both the suits has strongly contended that in absence of the allotment order the title in the name of the plaintiffs cannot be decided. He has contended that revenue record does not confer title. There is no quarrel on the issue. 13. It is a settled law that revenue record does not confer title on a person whose name appears in the record of right. He has contended that revenue record does not confer title. There is no quarrel on the issue. 13. It is a settled law that revenue record does not confer title on a person whose name appears in the record of right. A single Bench of the Gauhati High Court in the case of Uttam Kumar Sen v. Gita Das Choudhury reported in (1998) 1 GLR 145 has held— “8. The entry in record of rights is admissible in evidence under section 35 of the Evidence Act. The principle on the basis of which it has been accepted to be admitted is that law reposes the confidence in public officers entrusted with public duties that it be presumed that they will discharge their duties with accuracy and fidelity. The Privy Council in Kesho Prasad Vs. Mr. Bhagjogna Kuer, AIR 1937 PC 69 (76) has pointed out that entries on such Government records are evidence of title mainly because they are good evidence of possession but if contrary to the facts as to the possession at the time they were made they carry little, if any, weight. 9. Keeping the above legal position in view, the finally published khatian marked as Ext.1 must be construed to have authenticity as to the possession of the plaintiff in the suit premises.” The Privy Council in the case of Maharaja Sir Kesho Prasad Singh Bahadur v. Bahuria Mt. Bhagjogna Kuer & Ors. reported in AIR 1937 Privy Council 69 has observed, “Entries made in such Government records as the Record of Rights are evidence of title mainly because they are good evidence of possession, but if contrary to the facts as to possession at the time they were made they carry little, if any, weight. This would be specially applicable to entries made by the Tashildar as of routine and without notice to any parties interested to oppose their being made.” The Supreme Court in the case of Balwant Singh v. Daulat Singh reported in (1997) 7 SCC 137 referring to its earlier decision in the case of Sawarni v. Inder Kaur, (1996) 6 SCC 223 has observed— “21. We have considered the rival submissions and we are of the view that Mr. We have considered the rival submissions and we are of the view that Mr. Sanyal is right in his contention that the courts were not correct in assuming that as a result of Mutation No.1311 dated 19-7-1954, Durga Devi lost her title from that date and possession also was given to the persons in whose favour mutation was effected. In Smt. Sawarni's case, Pattanaik J., speaking for the Bench has clearly held as follows: (SCC p.227, para 7) "7……..Mutation of a property in the revenue record does not create or extinguish title nor has it any presumptive value on title. It only enables the person in whose favour mutation is ordered to pay the land revenue in question. The learned Additional District Judge was wholly in error in coming to a conclusion that mutation in favour of Inder Kaur conveys title in her favour. This erroneous conclusion has vitiated the entire judgment." In a latest decision of the apex Court in the case of Union of India v. Vasavi Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. reported in (2014) 2 SCC 269 the Supreme Court has held that revenue records do not confer any title. Even if the entries in the RoRs carry evidentiary value, that itself would not confer any title on the plaintiff. We may gainfully refer here para 21 of the judgment which reads as follows:- “21. This Court in several judgments has held that the revenue records do not confer title. In Corpn. of the City of Bangalore v. M. Papaiah, (1989) 3 SCC 612 , this Court held that: (SCC p.615, para 5) “5………It is firmly established that the revenue records are not documents of title, and the question of interpretation of document not being a document of title is not a question of law.” In Guru Amarjit Singh v. Rattan Chand, (1993) 4 SCC 349 , this Court has held that: (SCC p.352, para 2) “2……..that the entries in Jamabandi are not proof of title”. In State of H.P. v. Keshav Ram, (1996) 11 SCC 257 , this Court held that: (SCC p.259, para 5) “5. ….an entry in the revenue papers by no stretch of imagination can form the basis for declaration of title in favour of the plaintiff.” The Supreme Court reiterated the same principle in the cases of Jattu Ram v. Hakam Singh, (1993) 4 SCC 403 , Narain Prasad Agrawal(Dead) L.Rs. ….an entry in the revenue papers by no stretch of imagination can form the basis for declaration of title in favour of the plaintiff.” The Supreme Court reiterated the same principle in the cases of Jattu Ram v. Hakam Singh, (1993) 4 SCC 403 , Narain Prasad Agrawal(Dead) L.Rs. v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2007) 11 SCC 736 , Narasamma v. State of Karnataka, (2009) 5 SCC 591 , Suraj Bhan v. Financial Commissioner, (2007) 6 SCC 186 , and Faqruddin(Dead) L.Rs v. Tajuddin(Dead) L.Rs, (2008) 8 SCC 12 . The decision referred by learned counsel, Mr. Dutta in Gurunath Mahohar Pavaskar(supra) also reiterates the same principle. The cases of Thimmaiah(supra) and Atla Sidda Reddy(supra) referred by learned counsel, Mr. Dutta are found to be of no relevance in the facts and circumstances of the present appeals. 14. It is a settled law that a plaintiff while seeking declaration of title and recovery of possession is to stand on his own leg. The plaintiff cannot depend on the defects of the defendants. The plaintiff is to strictly prove his title over the suit land and in that case only the plaintiff will succeed. The plaintiff cannot get any advantage on the weaknesses of the defendant. 15. Here the defendant Nos.1 and 2 have no case. They have adduced no oral or documentary evidence except examination of defendant No.1 who simply stated that he and his predecessor possessing the suit land for 45/50 years and the record of right of the plaintiffs was wrong and collusive. The record of right as it stands in the name of the plaintiffs proves that the plaintiffs were in possession and according to the plaintiffs they have been dispossessed in the year 2000. No doubt, such record of right does not prove the title but it proves the case of the plaintiffs that the plaintiff/predecessor of the plaintiffs in the respective suits were in possession of the suit land and the khatian was prepared in due process of law. Exbt.1 proved by the plaintiffs in both the suits shows that the khatian was prepared pursuant to allotment of land. That entry in the khatian that the plaintiff/predecessor of the plaintiffs as the case may be were allottees of the suit lands is admissible in evidence in view of the provisions of Section 35 of the Evidence Act. Exbt.1 proved by the plaintiffs in both the suits shows that the khatian was prepared pursuant to allotment of land. That entry in the khatian that the plaintiff/predecessor of the plaintiffs as the case may be were allottees of the suit lands is admissible in evidence in view of the provisions of Section 35 of the Evidence Act. The khatian has to be appreciated and accepted as a whole. Whatever entries made in the khatian has to be presumed as correct until it is rebutted otherwise. The specific entry made in the khatian that the khatian has been created pursuant to allotment of the land, since has not been rebutted in any other manner, has to be presumed as correct and that entry itself supports the case of the plaintiffs that there was an allotment order passed by the competent authority in favour of the plaintiff/predecessor of the plaintiffs in the suits respectively. 16. The Supreme Court in the case of Sudhangshu Mohan Deb v. Niroda Sundari Debidhup reported in (2004) 4 SCC 389 has considered that the entries made in the khatian should be presumed to be correct until contrary is proved. In that reported case the Supreme Court considered the provisions of Section 134, 135 and 136 of TLR & LR Act and while deciding the issues relating to the estates of intermediary as a consequence of which a khatian was prepared the Court held that the entries made in the khatian should be presumed to be correct until contrary is proved and that a fresh right was created. We may gainfully refer here para 6 and 7 of the judgment which reads as follows: “6. From a perusal of the above provisions, it will be seen that all estates in a notified area vest in the Government free from all encumbrances. All rights, title and interest of every intermediary in the estates stand extinguished. After the notified date, no one except the State Government is left with any right, title or interest in the subject lands. Once the lands vested in the State Government, the State Government is free to deal with the same in any manner it decides. This may include a decision on the part of the State Government to grant tenancy rights with respect to the lands or any portion thereof in favour of any party on payment of land revenue. Once the lands vested in the State Government, the State Government is free to deal with the same in any manner it decides. This may include a decision on the part of the State Government to grant tenancy rights with respect to the lands or any portion thereof in favour of any party on payment of land revenue. It appears that in 1968 the appellant applied for grant of right as a “raiyat” or as a non-agricultural tenant for the land in suit on payment of land revenue under Section 136(2) of the Act. The State Government granted the right as a “raiyat” in favour of the appellant which was evidenced by a "khatiyan"(entry in the revenue records showing tenancy) in the appellant's favour. The khatiyan was initially granted on a provisional basis which was after contest finalised in favour of the appellant in 1974. The revenue entry was published in the revenue records which is evidenced by the khatiyan. The effect of grant of khatiyan in favour of the appellant is that his possession of the lands is under the Government and is with the consent of the Government and he is paying land revenue to the Government for the same. In other words, the appellant gets a fresh right to possession of the land as a tenant. Section 43 of the Act conveys the consequence of publication of khatiyan. The said Section is reproduced as under: "43.(1) When a record-of-rights has been prepared, the survey officer shall publish a draft of the record in such manner and for such period as may be prescribed and shall receive and consider any objections which may be made during the period of such publication, to any entry therein or to any omission therefrom. (2) When all objections have been considered and disposed of in accordance with the rules made in this behalf, the survey officer shall cause the record to be finally published in the prescribed manner. (3) Every entry in the record-of-rights as finally published shall, until the contrary is proved, be presumed to be correct." 7. It will be seen from the above provision that once a khatiyan is finalised and its publication takes place, it is presumed to be correct until the contrary is proved. The final khatiyan stands published in favour of the appellant which gives the appellant right to remain in possession of the suit land. It will be seen from the above provision that once a khatiyan is finalised and its publication takes place, it is presumed to be correct until the contrary is proved. The final khatiyan stands published in favour of the appellant which gives the appellant right to remain in possession of the suit land. This is a fresh right created in favour of the appellant by the State Government in whom the entire land had vested by virtue of Sections 134 and 135 of the Act.” 17. The plaintiffs claimed title over the suit land pursuant to allotment order. It is their case that they had lost the allotment order. No duplicate copy could be supplied by the office of the State respondent. Pro-defendant No.3, i.e. the State of Tripura in para 10 of their written statement filed in TS 23 of 2006 stated thus— “10. That, in regard to the statement made in para 7, 8 and 9 of the plaint the answering pro-defendant submits that it is not possible in his part to trace out the allotment case number and year as it is a very old record and without having any reference the answering pro-defendant cannot admit or deny the same. But from the face of ORR it appears that allotment was made in favour of Bipendra Behari Jamatia for land measuring 6.00 acre. But now the defendant No.1 and 2 are possessing 5.60 acre of land in total and A.W Centre are in possession of 0.40 acres of land.” Similarly, the said defendant in para 10 of their written statement in TS 24 of 2006 stated thus— “10. That, in regard to the statement made in para 7 of the plaint it is to be stated by the answering pro-defendants that it is not possible on the part of the answering pro-defendants to trace out the year of allotment without any reference. But it is fact that in the face of the ORR, it appears that allotment was made in favour of Ram Chandra Jamatia. But the possession is found in favour of defendant No.1 and one Karna Sadhan Jamatia.” In view of the above pleadings of defendant No.3 it is clear that the defendant did not deny the fact that there was an allotment in favour of the plaintiff/predecessor of the plaintiffs in the suits respectively. But the possession is found in favour of defendant No.1 and one Karna Sadhan Jamatia.” In view of the above pleadings of defendant No.3 it is clear that the defendant did not deny the fact that there was an allotment in favour of the plaintiff/predecessor of the plaintiffs in the suits respectively. DW2 has been examined on behalf of the State of Tripura, i.e. pro-defendant No.3. In his examination-in-chief in TS 23 of 2006 he stated in para 2 thus— “2. That it is not possible on the part of the pro-defendant to trace out the allotment case number and year as it is a very old record and without having any reference. But from the face of O.R.R. it is appears that allotment was made in favour of Bipendra Behari Jamatia for land measuring 6.00 acres of land. But now the defendant No.1 and 2 are possessing 5.60 acres of land in total and A.W. Centre are in possession of 0.40 acres of land.” Similarly, the same witness in his examination-in-chief in TS 24 of 2006 in para 2 stated— “2. That it is not possible on the part of the pro-defendant to trace out the year of allotment without any reference. But it is fact that in the face of the O.R.F. it appears that allotment was made in favour of Ram Chandra Jamatia. But the possession is found in favour of defendant No.1 and one Karna Sadhan Jamatia.” The above evidence of DW2 is consistent with the pleadings of the defendant No.3, i.e. the State of Tripura. So it is evident that defendant No.3 did not deny the fact that the suit land was allotted in the name of the plaintiff/predecessor of the plaintiffs of the respective suits. 18. The standard of proof in a civil suit is preponderance of probability. As already stated earlier burden lies on the plaintiff to prove his case and plaintiffs cannot gain any strength from the nonaction/inaction of the defendants. Defendant Nos.1 and 2 simply denied and disputed all the claims of the plaintiffs but defendant No.3 in their pleadings and evidence rather admitted the fact that there was allotment of land in favour of the plaintiff/predecessor of the plaintiffs and that the duplicate copy of the allotment order could not be supplied since it could not be traced out in absence of the case number, etc. 19. 19. Here the plaintiffs are not required to prove the chain of title of their previous owners. It is an admitted position that the suit land originally was a khas land belonged to defendant No.3. The plaintiffs claimed that they got allotment of the suit land. Defendant No.3 is the principal owner/superior owner of the suit land. They have not disputed rather admitted that the suit land was allotted to the plaintiff/predecessor of the plaintiffs. Under such circumstances if we balance the totality of the evidence on record it would appear that the plaintiffs have got a very good case and they have proved their claim that the suit land was allotted in their favour and in consequence whereof the khatians were prepared in the name of the plaintiff/predecessor of the plaintiffs. That khatian by itself is not a document of title but the entries made in that khatian that it was created because of an allotment, which is admissible as per Section 35 of the Evidence Act, makes out a case in favour of the plaintiffs that they are entitled to get the declaration as sought for. 20. The first appellate Court in para 20 of the judgment of TA No.03 of 2010 observed thus— “20. But at the same time the proforma defendant respondent as proforma defendant No.3 submitted a field enquiry report which has been marked as Exbt.A along with a map, marked Exbt.B. Exbt. A, the field enquiry report shows that defendant respondent No.1 and 2 have been possessing 5.40 acres and 0.20 acres of the suit land, respectively, prior to 1980 and on the rest portion of 0.40 acres of the suit land one Anganwadi Kendra has been running since the year 2000. Therefore, the proforma defendant No.3 not only supports case of the plaintiff appellant, to the extent that the suit land was allotted in the name of the plaintiff appellant but also does not support the case of the plaintiff appellant that the plaintiff appellant was dispossessed on 12.4.2000 as alleged by the plaintiff/appellant. Therefore, the evidence of the proforma respondent corroborates the evidence of the defendant respondents that the defendant respondents No.1 and 2 have been possessing the suit land for last around 50 years.” Similarly, the first appellate Court in para 21 of the judgment of TA No.4 of 2010 observed thus— “21. Therefore, the evidence of the proforma respondent corroborates the evidence of the defendant respondents that the defendant respondents No.1 and 2 have been possessing the suit land for last around 50 years.” Similarly, the first appellate Court in para 21 of the judgment of TA No.4 of 2010 observed thus— “21. But at the same time the proforma defendant respondent as proforma defendant No.3 submitted a field enquiry report which has been marked as Exbt.A along with a map, marked Exbt.B. Exbt.A, the field enquiry report shows that defendant respondent No.1 has been possessing 4.40 acres and one Karna Sadhan Jamatia has been possessing 0.20 acres of the suit land prior of 1980. Therefore, the proforma defendant No.3 not only supports case of the plaintiff appellants, to the extent that the suit land was allotted in the name of Ram Chandra Jamatia, the predecessor in interest of the plaintiffs, but also does not support the case of the plaintiff appellants that Ramchandra Jamatia was dispossessed on 12.4.2000 as alleged by the plaintiff-appellants. Therefore, the evidence of the proforma respondent corroborates the evidence of the defendant respondents that the defendant respondents No.1 and one Karna Sadhan Jamatia have been possessing the suit land for last around 50 years.” 21. It is therefore evident that the first appellant Court arrived at a finding that proforma-defendant No.3 supported the case of the plaintiff in respect of the allotment but the first appellate Court taking into consideration Exbt.A and Exbt.B which are the reports submitted by DW2 has held that the plaintiffs since not in possession were not entitled to get a decree. That finding of the first appellate Court is not tenable at all. DW2 submitted and proved Exbt.A and Exbt.B, i.e. a report and map. DW2 only can say as to who was found in possession on the date he inspected the suit land. He cannot say who was in the possession of the suit land in the year 1980 or before the date of his inspection. The report shows that he submitted the report on 10.01.2007 which means he visited the suit land on that day or immediately before that day. Therefore, any report submitted by DW2 mentioning that the defendants were in possession from a particular date long prior to the date of his visit cannot be accepted. The report shows that he submitted the report on 10.01.2007 which means he visited the suit land on that day or immediately before that day. Therefore, any report submitted by DW2 mentioning that the defendants were in possession from a particular date long prior to the date of his visit cannot be accepted. Exbt.A and Exbt.B are simply reports and map submitted by DW2 to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate in official process wherein he mentioned that the defendants possessing the suit land since before 1980. That statement by itself does not afford any evidence to decide that the defendant Nos.1 and 2 in both the suits have been in possession of the suit land since before 1980. DW2 only can say as to what he has found on the date of his inspection. Any statement in the report made by him that somebody was in possession since before the date of his inspection is not at all a cogent evidence to appreciate. Except DW1, the defendants adduced no other item of evidence to show that defendant Nos.1 and 2 or anybody else was in possession of the suit land before the date the plaintiffs stated in their pleadings and evidence. Therefore, the finding of the first appellate Court that the plaintiffs were not entitled to get a decree in view of Exbt.A and Exbt.B is not at all tenable. The finding of the first appellant Court in respect of allotment has not been challenged by the defendants. Anyway considering the evidence on record I am of the firm opinion that in view of the entries made in the khatian prepared in the name of the plaintiff/predecessor of the plaintiffs and in view of the mention therein that it was an allottee khatian and further in view of the pleadings and evidence of defendant No.3 that there was allotment in the name of the plaintiff/predecessor of the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs’ case should be held to have proved with all preponderance of probabilities. Learned counsel, Mr. Dutta referring the case of Dayaram v. Dawalatshah(supra) submitted that since there was concurrent finding, this Court should not interfere in the findings of Courts below in the given facts and position of law is concerned of the present cases. I find nothing to apply the ratio of that decision in the present suits. 22. The plaintiffs instituted the suits for recovery of possession based on title. I find nothing to apply the ratio of that decision in the present suits. 22. The plaintiffs instituted the suits for recovery of possession based on title. The defendants disputed. The plaintiffs have adduced evidence that they had been dispossessed on 14.04.2000. The entries made in the khatian show that they were in possession of the suit land and there is no evidence to revert the presumption. If the plaintiffs were dispossessed on 14.04.2000 the suit being instituted in the year 2006 is within the limitation. The provision of Article 65 of the Schedule of the Limitation Act, 1963 is applicable in the present suits and the plaintiffs proved their case that they have brought the suit within twelve years from the date of dispossession. The defendants did not plead adverse possession. Their only case is that they were all along in possession for 45/50 years and that the khatian was collusive. It is already discussed and held that the khatians since published finally has got its presumptive value in respect of the entries made therein though by itself cannot prove the claim of title but coupled with the other evidence on record it is proved that the suit land was allotted in favour of the plaintiff/predecessor of the plaintiffs of the respective suits and so the plaintiffs were entitled to get decree as prayed for. The trial Court as well as the first appellate Court arrived at a perverse finding since both the Courts failed to consider the documents and evidence on record according to law. 23. The judgment and decree passed by the trial Court in Title Suit No.23 of 2006 and Title Suit No.27 of 2006 and affirmed by the appellate Court in Title Appeal No.3 of 2010 and Title Appeal No.4 of 2010 respectively are hereby set aside. Both the suits are decreed in favour of the plaintiffs. The right, title and interest of the plaintiffs as prayed for in the respective suit lands are hereby declared. The defendants are directed to vacate the suit land and to hand over possession to the plaintiffs within 60(sixty) days. If the defendants fail to hand over possession, as directed, the plaintiffs will be entitled to get recovery of possession of the suit land of their respect suits in accordance with law. 24. Parties to bear their respective costs. 25. The defendants are directed to vacate the suit land and to hand over possession to the plaintiffs within 60(sixty) days. If the defendants fail to hand over possession, as directed, the plaintiffs will be entitled to get recovery of possession of the suit land of their respect suits in accordance with law. 24. Parties to bear their respective costs. 25. Send back the L.C. records along with a copy of this judgment.