In the Instant case, the lower appellate court, after a detailed discussion of the evidence of the parties came to the conclusion that after the auction sale of the ralyat interest of Salimuddin in 1939 there had been a change in the status and possession of the parties. Therefore the presumption of right, title and possession on the basis of C.S. Khatian did not hold good any more. [Para-9]
Taleb Ali Pramanik & Ors. Vs. Serajul Haque Mondal & Ors. 7 BLT(AD)-28
C.S. Khatians: In view of the fact that the suit property as a debutter property of the deity and there is absolutely no basis of its becoming the secular property of a former shebait Suresh. The mere recording of the suit property in the name of the Suresh in the S.A. Khatian is evidently wrong and without any foundation whatsoever and the same cannot affect the plaintiffs right, title, and interest in the suit property any way. There is no dispute to the proposition that the C.S. Khatians has a presumption of correctness under section 103 (b) of the B.T. Act while the S.A. Khatians has no such presumptive value. [Para-28]
Hindu Devi Lakshmi Gobinda Jew Vs. Bangladesh & Ors. 7 BLT (HCD)-133.
The presumption of the C. S. Khatian under ‘Section 103(B) of the Bengal Tenancy Act is that every entry in a record of rights finally published shall be the evidence of the matter referred to in such entry arid, shall he presumed to be correct until it is proved to be incorrect.
Hriday Chandra Dey & Anr. Vs. Probat Dey & Ors. 10BLT(AD)-137