MST. HAMJARUN NESSA Vs. MST. WARICHUN NESSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals being RSA No.19 of 2013 [Mst. Hamjarun Nessa & 4 others vs. Mst. Warichun Nessa] and RSA No.20 of 2013 [Mst. Hamjarun Nessa & 4 others vs. Md. Sayed Ali] are taken up together as these appeals filed under Section 100 of the CPC arise from the common judgment dated 07.02.2013 delivered in Title Appeal No.11 of 2012 and Title Appeal No.12 of 2012 by the District Judge, North Tripura, Kailashahar, as then he was. That apart, these appeals are admitted on the identical substantial question of law as noted below by the order dated 10.06.2013:

(2.) The minimal essential fact as required for appreciating the said substantial question may be noticed at the outset: The plaintiff-respondent, namely Mst. Warichun Nessa instituted a suit against the appellants being Title Suit No.41 of 2010 [related to RSA No.19 of 2013] for declaration and recovery of possession of the suit land as described in the schedule appended to the plaint. The title of the suit land, according to the plaintiff-respondent, devolved to her by virtue of the sale deed under No.1-1843 dated 07.07.1983 on the day of the execution. The plaintiff-respondent was delivered with the physical possession of the suit land. She started possessing the suit land by growing paddy year after year. The record of rights was duly mutated and a new Khatian No.471 was created on 27.08.1988. The plaintiff- respondent was in active possession. On 20.07.2007, the appellants had attempted to dispossess the plaintiff-respondent from the suit land. On the face of such aggravation, the plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for declaration of right, title and interest and also for perpetual injunction on 20.05.2007 being Title Suit No.24 of 2007. Later on, the suit was withdrawn on 21.08.2009 on the basis of a compromise struck on 15.05.2009 with liberty to file afresh on condition of payment of Rs.500/- (Rupees Five hundred) to be paid to the defendants of that suit. On 02.08.2010 the defendant- appellants dispossessed the plaintiff-respondent from the suit land and hence, the suit being Title Suit No.41 of 2010 was instituted by the plaintiff-respondent.

(3.) The defendant-appellants filed the written Statement on 26.02.2011 and denied the allegations of dispossession by stating that the story of dispossession has been fabricated to suit the purpose as the defendant-appellants were in possession since long as the legal heirs of Furkan Ullah and his brother namely, Rahaman Ullah who died without any direct descendants. Furkan Ullah and his brother Rahaman Ullah on the strength of registered Kabala No.734/1357 T.E. dated 24.11.1357 T.E and the registered Kabala No.272/1357 T.E. dated 17.07.1357 T.E were the owners in possession till their death and thereafter, the defendant-appellants have become the owners in possession. The trial court framed the following issues for purpose of adjudicating the suit: