SARADA MOHAN Vs. DHARMA SARMA@ DHARMIAN SARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have heard Mr. M.H. Rajbarbhuiyan, learned counsel for the appellants-plaintiffs, and Ms. PK Deka, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the respondents-defendants. By preferring this appeal, the plaintiffs- appellants have put to challenge the judgment and decree, dated 24.02.2003 and 07.03.2003, respectively passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Hailakandi, in Title Appeal No. 20 of 1995, dismissing the appeal and thereby upholding and affirming the judgment and decree, dated 27.06.1995 and 10.07.1995, respectively, whereby the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) had dismissed the suit.

(2.) The case of the plaintiffs-appellants is, in brief, thus: On the request of the defendant-respondent No. 1, the predecessor-in-interest of the present appellants, namely, Sarada Mohan Das, had allowed the defendants to stay in a room on the western varanda of his house as monthly tenant In the absence of plaintiff and his family members, the defendants trespassed into the main room of the house and when the wife of said Sarada Mohan Das asked the defendants to hand over the possession of the house, the defendants assaulted her, whereupon the said plaintiff lodged a criminal case against the defendants, but, later on, did not pursue the case as the defendant No. 1 executed a deed of compromise stating therein that he would vacate the house within 22.04.1987. However, the defendant No. 1 had, failed to do so, the plaintiffs instituted a suit The said suit gave rise to Title Suit No. 70 of 1987. In the suit, the defendants took the plea that they were in the occupation of the suit premises on the strength of an unregistered lease deed, which was executed between the plaintiffs and the defendants. The suit was dismissed, on 25.03.1988, by the learned Munsiff No. 1, Hailakandi. A decree accordingly followed. The dismissal of the suit was challenged by the said plaintiff by way of an appeal, which gave rise to Title Appeal No. 08 of 1988. The appeal too was dismissed by the judgment and decree, dated 22.02.1989, passed by Assistant District Judge, Hailakandi. After the dismissal of the appeal, the said plaintiff against instituted the present suit seeking, inter alia, declaration that (i) the lease deed, mentioned in the 3rd Scheduled of the plaint, which was relied upon by the defendants in the former suit (i.e., Title Suit No. 70 of 1987), was forged, fictitious and illegal and (ii) recovery of khas possession of the 2nd Scheduled land and house standing thereon by vacating the defendants therefrom.

(3.) As indicated hereinabove, the present suit also failed and was dismissed by the learned trial Court and the decree has been upheld by the learned first appellate Court.