JUDGMENT : 1. Appellants are the Plaintiffs who have preferred the instant appeal against the judgment and decree passed in Title Appeal No. 17/2009 affirming the judgment and decree of dismissal of Title Suit No. 15/1994. 2. The plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration of rights, title and possession of the land pertaining to Plot No. 35 under Khata No.2 and land of Plot Nos. 43 and 45 under Khata No. 16 of village-Cheriahan which was recorded as Gairmazarua Malik land during last cadastral survey. 3. The claim of title by the plaintiff over the suit land is founded on the plea that Most. Dhanwanti Kunwar W/O of Late Dinesh Pathak got the suit land reclaimed by her sons. The rent was assessed by the C.O. Manjhiaon and was realised from the date of vesting. Most. Dhanwanti Kunwar died leaving behind the plaintiffs and daughter Bacho Devi who relinquished her interest in favour of plaintiffs and they came in possession of all the properties. The plaintiffs applied for mutation which was allowed in Mutation Case No. 568/88-89. The Jamabandi ran up to 1993 when the Additional Collector, Garhwa cancelled the demand on the petition filed by Uma Shankar Pathak and his brother in Misc. Case No. 90/88-89. Plot No. 44 under Khata No. 1 was Bakasht Land of the ex-proprietor Bhaiya Rudra Pratap Deo and after his death his son succeeded to the estate who by registered sale Deed No. 2070 dated 01.04.59 transferred the land to the plaintiff. Plot Nos. 45 & 44 have been amalgamated with Plot No. 281 of village Bakoia. The name of Most. Dhanwanti Kunwar was mutated by Mutation Case No. 280/59-60. The wrong demand that was created in favour of Rajeshwar Choubey earlier was corrected in the name of Dhanwanti Kunwar which has been annulled by A.C., Garhwa. Resultantly, C.O., Manjhaion has wrongly struck of the name of plaintiff with respect to the Plot No. 44 which was not the order of defendant no.2. 4. The case of the defendants that Bhaiya Raj Kishore Deowas, Khewatdar No. 1 of village-Cheriyan, Khewatdar No. 2/1 and 2/2 where Bhagyat Ram and Thakur Ram Pathak of village-Bakoia having part 8 annas each. Bhaiya Raj Kishore Deo had nothing to do with the suit land the averment of reclamation of land by Most. Dhanwanti Kunwar has been denied. 4. The case of the defendants that Bhaiya Raj Kishore Deowas, Khewatdar No. 1 of village-Cheriyan, Khewatdar No. 2/1 and 2/2 where Bhagyat Ram and Thakur Ram Pathak of village-Bakoia having part 8 annas each. Bhaiya Raj Kishore Deo had nothing to do with the suit land the averment of reclamation of land by Most. Dhanwanti Kunwar has been denied. Circle Officer had no jurisdiction to asses rent of Gairmazarua Malik land in favour of anybody beyond June, 1996 at as it had been withdrawn by the Govt. Notification dated 16.06.1966. The Zamabandi of plaintiffs was found illegal, baseless, unwarranted, bogus and cancelled in Misc. Case No. 90/89-90. The Defendants are the heirs and descendants of ex-landlord of Khewat No.2/2 and they were and are in possession of the suit land. No khata was opened in the name of the plaintiff. Plot No. 44 never belonged to the ex-proprietor of Nagar Utari so they are not bound by any sale deed alleged to have been executed in favour of Dhanwantri Kunwar. Title Suit No.5/94 filed by the plaintiff against these defendants was also rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. This fact has been suppressed by the plaintiff. 5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties the following material issues were framed: (i) Have the plaintiffs got valid cause of action for the suit? (ii) Have the plaintiffs right title and possession over the suit land? (iii) Is the suit barred under Sections 91 and 258 of C.N.T. Act? (iv) Is the Additional Collector competent to cancel the Jamabandi running for the more than 20 years? 6. On the material issue whether the plaintiff has right, title and possession over the suit land and the Additional Collector was competent to cancel Jamabandi, the trial court recorded the finding of fact that the Circle Officer had no jurisdiction after 1966 to assess rent of Gairmazarua Malik land in view of the State Notification dated 16.06.1966 vide E –E/Lagan-iv-4012/66-5028 in supersession of the earlier Govt. Notification of 11.06.1959. No rent receipt in pursuant to Sale Deed No. 959 (Exhibit-2) relating to Plot Nos. 32 and 44 of Khata No. 28 have been produced nor no order relating to the said Mutation Case No. 280/59-60 was produced by the plaintiff. Notification of 11.06.1959. No rent receipt in pursuant to Sale Deed No. 959 (Exhibit-2) relating to Plot Nos. 32 and 44 of Khata No. 28 have been produced nor no order relating to the said Mutation Case No. 280/59-60 was produced by the plaintiff. The learned court below distinguished the present case from 2008 Vol-III JCR 143 (Jhr) on facts and held that the Additional Collector was competent to cancelled the Jamabandi. 7. The learned court of appeal concurred with the finding of the trial court on these issues. 8. The present appeal has been preferred mainly on the ground that the suit land was recorded as Gair Majurwa Malik land in the cadastral survey showing Bhaiya Raj Kishore Deo as ex-land lord and the said land was reclaimed by Most. Dhanwanti Kuanwar through her sons. The Additional Collector was not competent to cancel long standing Jamabandi running which was reclaimed by the mother and grandmother of the plaintiff and rent was fixed in their favour. 9. A suit for declaration of title can be based on the basis of either possessory title or proprietary title. When a plea of possessory title is made on the basis of adverse possession or ouster there need to be specific averment in the pleading in that regard on the ownership prior to the commencement of adverse possession; and continuous conduct thereafter. The proprietary title can devolve by a method known to law such as inheritance, testamentary succession, registered sale deed or gift deed which needs to be specifically pleaded and proved. The source of title along with the chain of title by which it has devolved need is to be pleaded in the plaint along with the documents enclosed with the plaint in terms of Order 7 Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 10. Here the plaintiff’s case is grounded on reclamation of part of the suit land and part to have been purchased from the ex-landlord. Reclamation does not confer any title unless on its basis the land has been settled as per the provision of the CNT Act. Issuance of rent receipt or mutation per se do not confer title. It is settled law that revenue records are not documents of title and at best in some way they are evidence of possession. Reclamation does not confer any title unless on its basis the land has been settled as per the provision of the CNT Act. Issuance of rent receipt or mutation per se do not confer title. It is settled law that revenue records are not documents of title and at best in some way they are evidence of possession. Therefore, to claim that once jamabandi had been opened, it cannot be cancelled is not the correct legal position as by reason of an entry in Register-II, a person merely becomes entitled to deposit rent. There has to be an underlying transfer. An administrative order of mutation passed by revenue authorities is not and cannot be a decision on the question of title. There can be cases where the Jambandi has been opened in a collusive manner or on the basis of forged or fabricated document, does it mean that they cannot be annulled by competent authority as per law? It has been held in Mahabir Kashi Vs. State of Jharkhand 2008 (4) JCR 428 (Jhr) that the Jamabandi based on forged Sada Hukumnama in collusion with Govt officials without obtaining order of competent authority, is illegal and liable to be cancelled. The facts of the authority relied upon by the appellant are very different and do not apply to the present facts and circumstance of the case. Here the plaintiff has come for declaration of title without disclosing the source of title in the pleading and have come up with sketchy evidence of revenue receipts for a brief period which was subsequently cancelled by the order of the competent authority. The Additional Collector in the impugned order dated 9.9.93 (Ext5) has stated that no such record was available on the basis of which it can be said that the jamabandi was opened in the name of Dhanwanti Kunwar. The learned Courts below have by concurrent finding of fact dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. 11. I do not find any substantial question of law involved for admitting the appeal for hearing. The Judgment and decree passed by the learned Court below is upheld. The learned trial Court has dismissed the suit without cost, but has not assigned reason for not allowing cost which is against the express mandate of Section 35(2) of the Code. 11. I do not find any substantial question of law involved for admitting the appeal for hearing. The Judgment and decree passed by the learned Court below is upheld. The learned trial Court has dismissed the suit without cost, but has not assigned reason for not allowing cost which is against the express mandate of Section 35(2) of the Code. The general rule under Section 35(2) of the Code is that costs shall follow the event unless for good reason the Court holds otherwise. It was incumbent on the Court to have awarded cost. The appeal is dismissed with cost. The cost assessed Rs.25,000/- through out from the suit to the appeal, to be paid by the original Plaintiff/Appellant No.1 to Respondent Nos. 4 and 5/Defendant Nos. 4 and 5 within three months of the order failing which the Respondents will be at liberty to realize the amount like a money decree.