HILEN LOYI Vs. NYAMO KAMDUK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed by the defendants against the judgment and order dated 6.2.95 passed by the learned Deputy Commissioner, West Siang District, Arunachal Pradesh in Civil Suit No. 2 of 1983. By the impugned Judgment the learned Deputy Commissioner decreed the suit of the plaintiff. Hence this appeal by the defendant.

(2.) I have heard Shri S. Kataky, learned Advocate for the appellant and Shri C. Barua, learned Advocate for the Respondent-Plaintiff The plaintiffbrought a suit being Title Suit No. 2 of 1983 before the Deputy Commissioner, Siang District, Arunachal Pradesh. The Suit was for declaration of title and ejectment and for recovery of possession by ejecting the defendant.

(3.) The case of the plaintiff was that this land belonged to the plaintiff and the defendant in the year 1974 taking the advantage of the temporary absence of the plaintiff and other members of the family kidnapped the caretaker of the premises and forcibly occupied the permises and that thereafter there was a demand by the plaintiff for giving up the land. But nothing was done. Thereafter a Kebang was held, but the Kebang failed to do anything. The defendant filed a written statement. His case is that he is the lawful owner of the land and he further claimed that the original land belonged to one Tumyam Kamduk and in the year 1970 he sold the land to the defendant for a sum of Rs. 700/- and delivered possession to the defendant. His further case is that Tumyam Kamduk had executed a deed in favour of the defendant but that the said deed was destroyed in 1977 when a disastrous fire burnt down the Pakam village. His case was that this deed was written by one Hengo Lollen and Moken Ete was also present. It is the case of the defendant that he also got grant from the Government of Arunachal Pradesh under the crash programme for the improvement of the land and the subsidy money was paid for opening the W.R.C. field. It was the further case of the defendant that the plaintiff is not only owner of the land. The land belonged to joint family. The following issues were framed :- I. Whether the land belongs to the plaintiffs? II. Whether the defendant had purchased the suit premises from its lawful owner ? III. Whether defendant had been retained possession of the suit premises at the time of filing of the suit. IV. Whether the defendant has forcefully occupied the suit premises ? Following are the witnesses examined on behalf of the parties. P.W.1 Nyamo Kamduk(Plaintiff). He deposed interalia, as follows :-