ANDUL SALAM ALIAS ABDUL SALAM Vs. JULMAT ALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 10.9.02 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Barpeta in T.A.No.2/01, by which the judgment and decree dated 20.12.2000 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Jr. Division, Barpeta in T.S.No.83/97 was set aside.

(2.) THE facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are as follows: The plaintiffs/respondents filed T.S.No.83/97 in the court of the Civil Judge, Jr. Division, Barpeta, praying for a decree for declaration of right, title and interest and possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land and also for recovery of "khas" possession of the suit land by evicting the appellants/defendants and also for deleting the names of the appellant from the land records of by issuing precept, to the land revenue authorities. According to the plaintiffs/appellants the suit land belonged to them and they never sold and/or alienated it to the respondents/defendants. Further the plaintiff No.1 never put his signature/thumb impression upon the "Chitha" to convert/mutation of the suit land in favour of the defendants/respondents. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants/respondents on 7.6.97 had forcefully dispossessed the plaintiffs/appellants from the suit land on the strength of fraudulent mutation over the suit land and also constructed 3 storied C.I. Sheet house on 4.6.97. After obtaining the certified copy of the "Chitha" on 7.6.97, the plaintiffs came to know about the fraudulent "Chitha" mutation allegedly made by the defendants/respondents. The plaintiffs thereafter brought the suit for recovery of the possession over the suit land and for declaration of right, title and interest and for cancellation of "Chitha" mutation.

(3.) DURING the trial, the plaintiffs examined as many as 4 witnesses and the defendants" side also examined as many as 5 witnesses, in support of their respective strength. The learned trial court on the basis of the evidence on record decided issue Nos. 3,5,6 and 9 against the plaintiffs and accordingly, dismissed the suit.