IMRAN HUSSAIN Vs. RULIMA BEGUM AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The sole defendant it Title Suit No. 47 of 2004 has preferred tins first appeal challenging the judgment and order 24.12.2004 passed by the learned District Judge. Jorhat. By this decree, the learned Trial Court decreed right, title and interest of the plaintiffs as well as the defendant and passed a preliminary decree for partition of the ancestral property between the plaintiffs' on one side and the defendant on the other.

(2.) Rulima Begum, Rusema Begum, their father Azizur Hussain as plaintiffs instituted Title Suit No. 47 of 2005 praying for declaration of their right, title and interest on the suit land along with Imran Hussain as sole defendant. It is stated that Schedule - A land originally belonged to Nurbahar Begum, the mother of the plaintiff Nos. 1 and 2 and the defendant. The plaintiff No. 3 was the widower of the late Nurbahar Begum and, thus, he also inherited 1/4th of the property after Nurbahar had died intestate. All the legal heirs were enjoying properties during pendency of the suit. In the meantime, Azizur Hussain also died and. thus, the suit was continued by the two plaintiffs. i.e. plaintiff Nos. 1 and 2, the daughters and the defendant Imran Hussain, the son of Nurbahar Begum. According to the plaintiffs, they claimed partition of the property amicably, but the defendant did not agree to it and sought to deprive them from their right in the ancestral property. Hence, the suit proceeded for declaration of right title and interest and partition of the Schedule - A property. Schedule - B land described in the plaint are houses standing on the Schedule - A land. According to the plaintiffs, except Holding No. 420, all holdings are constructed by the original owner Nurbahar Begum and so all of them have right, title and interest to the same. The Holding No. 420 admittedly was constructed by the sole defendant, however. allegedly all the money derived from rental of the other holdings.

(3.) On being summoned the sole defendant appeared and submitted Written Statement. He stated that the plaintiff No. 1 denounced Islam by marrying a Hindu, Jogesh Chandra Saikia and gave up all her right, title and interest of the parental property. Plaintiff No. 2 similarly severed ail connection with the defendant and did not make any claim as to the property and so her claim was similarly forfeited. The defendant had ail along been enjoying the property as sole owner to the same. Although mutation was allowed in favour of the plaintiffs as well as defendant but this did not confer any title to the plaintiffs, defendant contended. On the basis of the aforesaid contention of the parties, learned Trial Court framed as many as nine issues which are quoted below :