UPENDRA MANDAL Vs. BHAJAHARI MANDAL AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is defendant's appeal against the judgment and decree dated 25.3.1982 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Kamrup, Gauhati, whereby the defendant's appeal against the judgment and decree dated 19.5.1977 passed by the learned Assistant District Judge No. 2, Gauhati, was dismissed.

(2.) Briefly, the facts giving rise to this appeal, are that the plaintiff had filed the suit for ejectment of the defendant, the present appellant, from the property in suit, 17 Ls. of land in Rehabari, Guwahati. There were some houses on the land in suit. The plaintiff's case was that he had purchased the said land from the defendants No. 3 and 4 for Rs. 7000.00 by registered sale deed dated 25.4.1967. The defendant No. 1, a licensee under defendants No. 3 and 4, was in its permissive occupation. The defendant No. 1 had three houses on the land and holding was registered in his name in the municipal record. The defendant No. 1 was the son-in-law of the maternal uncle of the plaintiff and accordingly was allowed to continue in possession. The plaintiff subsequently had purchased the houses from the defendant No. 1 on 27.4.1967. When the plaintiff applied to have his name mutated against the said holding in the municipal record, the defendant No. 1 had raised objection. Hence the suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession of the property in suit was filed. The principal defendants, hereafter referred as the defendants, who are the appellants, contested the suit and denied the sale of the holding for Rs. 900.00to the plaintiff No. 1. It was asserted that the land was agricultural land of which one Lal Bahadur Chetri was in occupation and that the defendants had taken transfer of the tenancy right of aforesaid Lal Bahadur Chetri and had tenancy right under the Assam (Temporarily Settled Districts) Tenancy Act, hereinafter referred as the Act'.

(3.) The learned Trial Court framed the necessary issues and held that the plaintiff was the owner of the land and the houses thereon, that the principal defendants were licensee and accordingly decreed the suit. The defendants' appeal was dismissed by the learned appellate court below in affirmation of the findings of the learned trial court.