SUBAL CH. ROY AND OTHERS Vs. MANMOHAN MORAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This defendant's appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 20.11.1989 passed by the learned Munsiff No. 1 North Lakhimpur in a suit under Sec. 6 of the Specific Relief Act.

(2.) The plaintiff opposite-party had filed the suit for recovery of possession of the land in suit described in the plaint on the allegations, that the plaintiff had purchased the land in suit from its previous owner Debendra Mandal and had been in its possession. The plaintiff had also grown some plants and trees on the land. The defendant No. 1 along with other defendants had on 3.9.1987 trespassed into the suit land erected temporary houses and dispossessed the plaintiff. A proceeding under section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was commenced. However, during its pendency the suit was filed. The defendants resisted the suit and claimed that even though the plaintiff had purchased the land from Debendra Mandal in turn the plaintiff had transferred it to Narendra Mandal and Debendra Mandal from whom the defendant No. 1 had purchased the land and had been in its possession. The plaintiffs version that he was dispossessed was refuted. The learned Munsiff had framed a number of issues and came to the conclusion that the defendant had trespassed on the suit land and had no lawful possession. The plaintiff was entitled to possessory right over the suit land. The suit was accordingly decreed.

(3.) Aggrieved, the defendants have come in revision, and Shri P.K. Goswami, learned Counsel appearing on their behalf has taken me through the judgment of the learned Trial Court and contended that nowhere the finding had been recorded by the learned Trial Court that the defendants had dispossessed the plaintiff within six months prior to the date of filing the suit and accordingly the suit under Sec. 6 of the Specific Relief Act had not been properly decided.