Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Lanke Haloi & Chandra Haloi........... on east, Kalikanta Sarma................ on west. Other land of Ajit Sarma................. on north, and cattle path........................ on south.

which fact does not fully agree with suit land when name of Chandra Haloi does not appear in the description given on plaint. P.W. 1 failed to corroborate the statement on plaint that he was residing with family in the suit land house during his deposition. P.W. 1 stated that three days after the act of delivery of possession the sale-deed was registered. But sale-deed, Ext. 1 shows it was executed and registered on the same date. During his cross-examination, P.W. 1 stated that he has no knowledge who is in possession of the land on the north of the suit land making himself unworthy of credit. Then again he admitted that there was a 'bichar/mel' (conciliation) in village before the proceedings under Section 145, Cr. P.C. and the suit, and Rajat Gaonbura (D.W. 2) was the president and Bhabani showed a sale-deed and, 'Balnama' there. Therefore, Ext. 'Kha', the verdict of 'Bichar' would become relevant to decide possession as a collateral piece of evidence, if duly proved. D.W. 2 has proved Ext. 'Kha' which supports that respondent/ plaintiff never came to possession, of the suit land. P.W. 2 is only attesting witness who admitted during cross-examination that he does not know the land that was sold and, therefore, is not a witness to possession. Thus, next witness remaining to prove possession of respondent/plaintiff is P.W. 3. P.W. 3 was also witness in proceedings under Section 145, Cr. P.C. P.W. 3 stated that both the seller and vender took part in measuring the land thus contradicting P.W. 1 who stated that measurement was done by seller himself. P.W. 3 further stated that he recorded the measurement but he could not say the length and breadth of the land, P.W. 3 also admitted that he was present in the village conciliation, but was not aware of the final result of such conciliation. This smacks of concealment of fact. Therefore, evidence to prove possession of respondent/plaintiff is neither firm nor dependable to prove delivery of possession of the suit land in his favour. Learned first appellate Court misquoted and misread the evidence of P.W. 3 (as observed earlier). Fatally for respondent/ plaintiff his vendor never supported him insofar the question of possession is concerned. Vendor is the best witness to prove delivery of possession consequent to sale.