HEMORAM SAIKIA Vs. LOBORAM SAIKIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE following are the substantial questions of law:

(2.) THIS is an appeal by the defendant. The plaintiff brought a suit for declaration of title and recovery of has possession with regard to 3B.1K.7L of land in the court of Learned Munsiff at Jorhat and that was registered as F.S. No. 21/87. There was also a claim for mesne profit for an amount of Rs. 2700. The case of the plaintiff was that earlier the plaintiff filed a Title Suit being Title Suit No. 35/74 before the Learned Munsiff at Jorhat with regard to 6B.1K.7L of land and that suit was compromised between the plaintiff and the defendant No. 1 and in terms of the compromise decree the defendant No. 1 agreed to give up the possession of 3B.IK.7L of land retaining 3B of land of the southern side. In terms of the compromise decree an execution was levied being Title Execution under 45/75 and warrant of delivery of possession was issued and the plaintiff was put in possession was issued and the plaintiff was put in possession of this three Bigha IK and 7L of land by executing the decree. Thereafter, the plaintiff was in possession the land but the defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 3 who are father and sons dispossessed the plaintiff from this land. There was a criminal prosecution for tress pass as against the defendant but the defendants were acquitted in that prosecution. There was a revision before this court and this court dismissed the criminal revision. Thereafter, this suit was filed on 10.4.1987 with the reliefs as indicated above.

(3.) WITH regard to issue No. 2 the Learned Munsiff found that the compromise decree cannot be res judicata. Even in the revision before this court i.e., criminal revision No. 989/76 wherein he was acquitted and this court directed the defendant to get his land properly demarcated and allow the complainant/plaintiff to possess or continue the possession of land in peaceful manner in terms of the compromise decree. The Learned Munsiff on consideration of the materials on record came to the categorical finding that in granting decree the plaintiff was put in possession and thereafter he was dispossessed from the land. Accordingly, the suit as decreed. There was an appeal being Title Appeal No. 65/89 before the Learned Asstt. District Judge at Jorhat and the appeal was also dismissed.