HARESWAR DEKA Vs. SACHIN CHOUDHURY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. P. Upadhyay, the learned counsel for the appellants. Also heard Mr. P.K. Kalita, the learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. N. Das, the learned counsel for the respondents No.1 and 2, and Mr. G. Bordoloi, learned Govt. Advocate, Assam, appearing for respondents No.6 and 7. None appears on call for the respondents No. 3, 4 and 5.

(2.) By this appeal under Section 100 C.P.C., the appellants have assailed the first appellate judgment and decree dated 14.09.2007, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) No.2, Kamrup, Guwahati in Title Appeal No. 94/2006, thereby setting aside and reversing the judgment and decree dated 10.11.2006, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) No.3, Kamrup, Guwahati, by which the suit filed by the respondents No.1 and 2 (plaintiffs) was dismissed.

(3.) The respondents No.1 and 2 were the plaintiffs in T.S. No. 383/2006. The suit was filed for declaration of right, title and interest and for recovery of khas possession, for permanent injunction and for declaration that the Sale Deed No. 3406/95 and 3407/95 are void in law, illegal and inoperative. In the plaint, it was projected that the appellant- defendant No.1 was engaged by the respondents No.1 and 2 (plaintiffs) as chowkidar in their private school and he also was the cleaner of their vehicles and that the appellant No.1 was allowed to stay in the house of the appellants at Ambari Fatasil at Guwahati. The appellant No.2 was the brother- in- law of the appellant No.1. It was claimed that proforma respondent No.3 was the raiyot of proforma respondent No.4 in respect of the land described in Schedule of the plaint. It is also stated that on 01.08.1963, the proforma defendant No.3 had executed a registered sale deed No. 5023/1963 and sold land measuring 1 bigha covered by Dag No. 44/149 of khatian No. 236 of Patta No.1 of Village- Fatasil, Mouza- Beltola in favour of (i) Bapu Ram Das, (ii) Kiran Bala Das, (iii) Tilottama Das (respondent- plaintiff No.2), and (iv) Suniti Bala Das and that thereafter, the said purchasers had constructed their respective houses thereon and the respondent No.2 was paying land revenue and municipal taxes. It was stated that in the year 1967, the respondent No.2 had constructed her house towards the western side of the said purchased land, which was let out by the respondent No.2 from time to time and that the respondent No.2 had allowed Kanak Das, her younger brother to stay in the house, who obtained electricity connection in his name in the year 1972 and that the said house had seven rooms and two verandah, where one of the sons of the respondents No.1 and 2 was staying. It was stated that prior to the said sale deed, the respondents had purchased possession of the suit land from proforma respondent No.3. It was also stated that in the settlement operation, there was some changes and Dag No.44 was merged with Dag No. 149. The proforma respondent No.4 sold the suit land to the respondent No.1 vide registered sale deed No. 3837 dated 02.06.1995. It was projected that second son of the respondents had seen that the appellants were showing the house standing on the suit land to a police personnel of Ambari Fatasil P.S. with a view to let it out and when objected to, the appellant No.1 informed that he had purchased the said land from the proforma respondent No.4 and accordingly, the matter was reported to the respondent No.1 and on enquiry, the respondent No.1 became aware that the proforma respondent No.4 had registered sale deeds No. 3406/95 and 3407/95 in favour of the appellants. It is projected that by the said two sale deeds, the appellants had purchased different plot of land in the same Dag covering a big area, but could not find their purchased land. It is projected that the appellant No.2 had never come into the picture and he was acting collusively with the proforma respondent No.4. It is projected that on 24.08.1995, the appellants had drove away the chowkidar and took possession of the house standing on the suit land. It was stated that the land was mutated in the names of appellants on the basis of order dated 04.12.1995 in Grant Mutation Case No. 63/94-95 65/94-95 and the land revenue records were corrected, which is projected to have been done with collusion. However, mutation case filed by the appellants before the Settlement Officer was dismissed by order dated 19.01.1996. Thus, by projecting that the cause of action for the suit arose on 18.12.1995, 24.08.1995, 04.12.1995 and 28.12.1995, the respondents No.1 and 2 had prayed for (i) declaring the right, title and interest of the respondents No.1 and 2 (plaintiffs) over the suit land, for recovery of khas possession by removing the appellants, their agents, etc. from the suit land and house standing thereon, for declaration that the registered sale deeds No. 3406/95 and 3407/95 by proforma respondent No.4 were collusive, void, illegal and cannot be given effect to and for directing the Senior Sub- Registrar (proforma defendant No.5, sic. should have been proforma respondent No.6) to cancel the same and to issue precept for such cancellation, (iii) permanent injunction, (iv) permanent injunction, (v) cancellation of order dated 04.12.1995 in G.M. Case No. 65/94-95 and correction of land records vide order dated 26.12.1995 by proforma respondent No.7, (vi) cost of suit, and (vii) any other relief. As per the plaint, the boundaries of the suit land in the North: Road, South: Smt. Sunity Talukdar and Kiron Das, East: Road and West: Tiken Das and Niranja Das, within which house covered by Holding No.407 of GMC Ward No.11 (old) in the name of respondent No.1 was standing.