BUBUL DEKA Vs. MONORANJAN DEKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. A. Alam, learned counsel for the appellant at the stage of hearing under Order XLI Rule 11 of the CPC.

(2.) The respondent is the plaintiff in T.S. No. 12/2012. The said suit was decreed on 20.12.2003 by the learned Civil Judge, Morigaon in favour of the respondent. The appellants preferred an appeal, which was registered as T.A. No. 3/2004 and the learned appellate Court allowed the appeal and remanded the suit back to the learned trial Court for a fresh decision. On remand, the learned trial Court had framed additional issues and opportunity was granted to both sides to adduce evidence on the additional issues. The suit was thereafter decreed vide judgment and decree dated 31.03.2015 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Morigaon. The aggrieved appellants had preferred an appeal, which was registered as T.A. No. 1/2015, which was dismissed by the learned District Judge, Morigaon vide judgment and decree dated 20.12.2017. The concurrent finding by the learned Courts below is now assailed by the appellants- defendants.

(3.) The case of the respondent- plaintiff in the plaint is that Late Harai Deka, who was the predecessor- in- interest of the parties, was the owner of the landed properties mentioned in the plaint. He died leaving behind four sons and one daughter, i.e., Soneswar Deka (predecessor-in- interest of respondent nos. 1 to 5, Dandiram Deka (father of appellant nos. 1 and 2), Maneswar Deka (father of appellant nos. 3 and 4), and Cheniram Deka [predecessor- in- interest of appellant nos. 5 to 9 and 10(i) to 10(iv)]and Basanti Deka (mother of appellant no.11). It was projected that after the death of Late Harai Deka, the land left behind by him was amicably partitioned amongst the four brothers, each getting 1/4 th share and that each of them possessed their share and while the names of other three brothers was mutated, the name of the original plaintiff, i.e. the predecessor- in- interest of the respondent nos. 1 to 5 was not mutated in respect of periodic patta no.112. It was projected that the plaintiff was in government service and remained outside home district for some time and during this time, to deprive the plaintiff of his share of inheritance, a forged purported will no. 4/68 dated 05.07.1968 of Late Harai Deka was created and taking advantage of orders passed in proceedings under section 145/146 Cr.P.C., the original plaintiff was collusively dispossessed by the original defendants (predecessor- in- interest of the appellants). Accordingly, the suit was filed for declaration of right, title and interest over the suit land described in schedule of the plaint, for recovery of khas possession and other consequential reliefs.