1. This appeal arises out of a suit which was originally brought to recover possession of 12 cottahs and 2 chittaks of land on the allegation that it was part of a dag No. 115 of Resettlement patta No. 5. The plaintiff's case was that he was in possession of this land all along, but in April 1919 the defendants dispossessed him. The defence was that this land appertained to a neighbouring dag No. 94 of patta No. 11 of a khasra settlement, and had been purchased as far back as 1897, but during the last re-settlement operation-the plaintiff wrongly got it included within his patta. The defendants also alleged that in 1919 the plaintiff dispossessed them and there was a criminal case which was referred to a panchayat for enquiry and they got the land back. The first Court decreed the suit, but in appeal it was pointed out that the local inspection by the amin was unsatisfactory and so the case was sent back for further hearing after a fresh enquiry by a qualified commissioner. The commissioner duly made his report and in the result the lower Court then decided that the plaintiff would get a decree for 7 cottahs 4 chittaks of land, the amount, which appeared under the re-settlement of 1918 to have been included) in plot 115. In appeal the learned Additional District Judge has found that the plaintiff has been unable to prove his title to this land at all and so has dismissed the suit.
2. In second appeal it is urged that after remand the question of plaintiff's title did not arise and that as the record-of-rights is in favour of the plaintiff, the onus is on the defendants to prove heir title and they have to rebut the entry in the record. The only evidence that the plaintiff has been able to adduce is the two pattas of 1900 and 1918, the record-of-rights not conferring, as the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation clearly states, any title at all. Now it has not been shown either that the plaintiff held this land under the patta of 1900 and as to the patta of 1918 there is nothing in his evidence to show that the defence set up is not the fact. The fact that the defendants have not been able to establish a clear title is no ground for the plaintiff getting a decree unless he can prove his title.
3. In this view the appeal must be dismissed with costs.